OF  ILLINOIS 


LIBRARY 


i  e 


•*      *v 


AGRK 

:' 


* 

I 

. 


-.."  .-m. 


-  - 


- 


UBf'ARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


-NON  CIRCULATING 

CHECK  FOR- UNBOUND 
CIRCULATING  COPY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BULLETIN  No.  167 


PROPORTIONS  OF  SHELLED  CORN 

AND  ALFALFA  HAY  FOR  FATTENING 

WESTERN  LAMBS 


BY  W.  C.  COFFEY 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS,  MARCH,  1914 


SUMMARY  OF  BULLETIN  No.    167 

1.  OBJECTS. —  (a)     To  determine  the  proportions  in  which  shelled  corn  and 
alfalfa  hay  should  be  fed  to  western  lambs,      (b)   To  compare  the  feeding  and 
market  qualities  of  wether  and  ewe  lamts.     (c)  To  ascertain  the  effects  of  early 
and  late  shearing  on  the  feeding  operation  as  a  whole.  Page  53 

2.  PLAN  OP  EXPERIMENTS. — Western  lambs  were  fed  shelled  corn  and  alfalfa 
hay  in  proportions  ranging  from  the  largest  quantity  of  corn  that  it  was  possible 
to  get  the  lambs  to  consume,  with  just  enough  hay  to  keep  them  healthy  and  thriv- 
ing, to  a  large  amount  of  hay,  with  just  enough  corn  to  put  them  in  choice  market 
condition  by  the  close  of  the  feeding  period.     In  Experiment  No.  1,  four  lots  of 
wether  lambs  were  fed,  and  in  addition  two  lots  of  ewe  lambs  were  fed  as  nearly 
as  possible  like  two  of  the  lots  of  wether  lambs.     In  Experiment  No.  2,  three  lots 
of  lambs  sheared  early  were  fed  as  nearly  as  possible  like  three  lots  sheared  late. 

Page  53 

3.  CONSUMPTION  OP  FEED. — The  proportions  of  corn  and  hay  varied  from  1 
part  corn  and  0.86  part  hay  to  1  part  corn  and  3.45  parts  hay,  but  the  total  weight 
of  feed  consumed  was  about  the  same,  regardless  of  proportions,  in  all  lots  within 
an  experiment.     The  greatest  proportion  of  corn  that  it  was  possible  to  get  the 
lambs  to  consume  at  any  stage  of  the  feeding  period  was  1  part  corn  to  0.66  part 
hay.    The  lambs  fed  the  greatest  proportion  of  corn  (which  was  also  the  greatest 
amount)  were  rather  difficult  to  keep  on  feed.     In  Experiment  No.  1  the  lots  con- 
suming the  largest  amount  of  grain  also  consumed  the  largest  amount  of  water. 

Page  55 

4.  GAINS  AND  MARKET  QUALITY. — In  each  experiment  the  lambs  receiving 
the  largest  proportion  of  corn  made  the  largest  gains.     Proportions  ranging  from 
1  part  corn  and  0.86  part  hay  to  approximately  1  part  corn  and  2  parts  hay  were 
about  equal  in  their  effect  on  market  quality. 

With  the  exception  of  one  lot,  the  ten  heaviest  lambs  in  each  lot  made 
greater  gains  than  the  ten  lightest  lambs.  Page  61 

5.  FINANCIAL  ASPECTS. — With  various  combinations  of  prices  for  corn  and 
hay,  excepting  a  combination  of  very  dear  corn  and  very  cheap  hay,  it  was  demon- 
strated that  the  lots  fed  the  greatest  proportion  of  corn  to  hay  produced  the  cheap- 
e&t  gains  and  returned  the  most  profit.     It  was  also  demonstrated  that  in  order  to 
make  the  feeding  operation  profitable  with  feeds  of  high  cost,  a  margin  of  $1.00 
per  hundredweight  based  on  home  costs  and  weights,  is  necessary,  but  that  with 
feeds  of  comparatively  low  cost  this  margin  is  not  necessary. 

The  fact  is  emphasized  that  the  lamb  feeder  should  grow  all  or  part  of  his 
feed  at  the  base  of  his  feeding  operations.  Page  66 

6.  COMPARISON    OP   WETHER   AND   EWE   LAMBS. — The    difference   between 
wether  and  ewe  lambs  in  feeding  and  market  qualities  was  slight.  Page  74 

7.  EFFECTS  OP  EARLY  AND  LATE  SHEARING. — Shorn  lambs  ate  more  feed 
than  unshorn  lambs  in  warm  weather,  but  there  was  little  difference  between  them 
in  gains  and  no  difference  in  market  quality.     Lambs  left  in  the  fleece  until  the 
end  of  the  experiment  sheared  from  2  to  2.75  pounds  per  head  more  than  early- 
shorn  lambs,  and  on  this  account  returned  more  profit.  Page  76 

CONCLUSIONS.  Page  81 


PROPORTIONS  OF  SHELLED  CORN  AND 

ALFALFA  HAY  FOR  FATTENING 

WESTERN  LAMBS 

BY  W.  C.  COFFEY,  CHIEF  IN  SHEEP  HUSBANDRY 

OBJECT  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTS 

Practically  all  sheep  and  lamb  feeders  want  to  know  the  propor- 
tions in  which  grain  and  roughage  should  be  fed  to  fattening  lambs. 
In  this  bulletin  there  is  presented  and  discussed  the  data  obtained 
from  two  experiments  conducted  at  this  station  during  the  winter  of 
1906-07  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  quantities  of  shelled  corn 
and  alfalfa  hay  should  be  combined  in  the  rations  of  fattening  lambs 
in  order  to  secure  the  most  profitable  returns.  Such  returns  are 
dependent  chiefly  on  the  extent  and  cost  of  the  gains  produced  and 
on  the  market  quality  secured  in  the  animals. 

In  the  first  experiment,  a  secondary  object  was  a  comparison  of 
the  feeding  and  market  qualities  of  wether  and  ewe  lambs;  in  the 
second  experiment,  a  secondary  object  was  a  consideration  of  the 
effects  of  early  and  late  shearing  on  fattening  lambs. 

PLAN  OF   THE   EXPERIMENTS 

In  each  experiment  the  lambs  were  divided  into  lots  of  twenty  each. 
Corn  and  alfalfa  hay  were  fed  to  these  various  lots  in  proportions 
ranging  from  the  largest  quantity  of  corn  that  it  was  possible  to  get 
the  lambs  to  consume,  with  just  enough  hay  to  keep  them  healthy  and 
thriving,  to  a  large  amount  of  hay  with  just  enough  corn  to  put  them 
in  choice  market  condition  by  the  close  of  the  feeding  period. 

In  Experiment  No.  1,  for  the  main  part  of  the  experiment,  four 
lots  of  wether  lambs  were  fed ;  and  in  order  to  accomplish  the  second- 
ary object,  two  lots  of  ewe  Jambs  were  fed  as  nearly  as  possible  like 
two  of  the  lots  of  wether  lambs.  In  Experiment  No.  2,  six  lots  treated 
as  three  pairs  of  duplicates  were  fed  corn  and  alfalfa  hay  in  three 
different  proportions,  or  combinations.  Early  in  the  experiment  one 
lot  from  each  combination  was  sheared,  while  the  other  lot  was  left  in 
the  fleece  until  near  the  close  of  the  experiment. 

THE  LAMBS 

Western  feeder  lambs  direct  from  the  range  were  purchased  on 
the  Chicago  market  for  each  experiment.  Those  in  Experiment  No.  1 
were  ' '  fancy  selected. ' '  Their  dark  markings  indicated  a  strong  inf u- 


^v 

54  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

sion  of  English  Down  blood,  and  they  averaged  about  69  pounds  in 
weight  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  Such  lambs  are  consid- 
ered suitable  for  finishing  in  a  short  feeding  period. 

The  lambs  in  Experiment  No.  2  were  of  choice  grade  and  weighed 
about  65  pounds  at  the  beginning  of  the  feeding  period.  They  did 
not  grade  so  high  as  the  lambs  in  Experiment  No.  1  because  they 
were  not  quite  so  good  in  quality. 

TREATMENT  OF  LAMBS  FROM  TIME  OF  PURCHASE  UNTIL  PLACED  ON 

EXPERIMENT 

Experiment  No.  1. — The  lambs  used  in  Experiment  No.  1  were 
purchased  in  Chicago  on  October  11  and  were  dipped  on  the  following 
day.  They  arrived  at  the  University  Farm  on  October  13,  and  until 
October  17  were  grazed  on  very  short  timothy  and  blue-grass  pasture. 
This  run  was  given  them  in  order  to  provide  an  opportunity  for  them 
to  take  on  a  fill  gradually,  to  rest  after  their  long  journey  from  the 
range,  and  to  recover  from  the  effects  of  dipping.  On  the  evening  of 
October  17,  they  were  put  in  a  dry  lot ;  and  from  that  time  until  Octo- 
ber 23,  the  date  on  which  the  experiment  began,  they  were  fed  a  small 
quantity  of  oats  and  shelled  corn  and  1.5  pounds  of  hay  (clover  and 
alfalfa)  per  head  per  day. 

Experiment  No.  2. — In  order  to  get  lambs  direct  from  the  range, 
it  was  necessary  to  purchase  them  early  in  December.  Because  it  was 
winter,  they  were  shipped  from  the  Chicago  market  without  being 
dipped.  Upon  reaching  the  University  Farm,  they  were  placed  in  a 
dry  lot,  where  they  were  fed  clover  hay  and  corn  stover  until  a  few 
days  before  the  experiment  began,  when  the  ration  was  changed  to 
alfalfa  hay.  The  corn  stover  contained  a  little  corn ;  hence  the  lambs 
were  partially  accustomed  to  this  feed  when  they  were  placed  on  ex- 
periment. 

The  lambs  were  kept  on  approximately  a  maintenance  ration  and 
so  made  practically  no  gains,  but  when  the  experiment  began  on  Feb- 
ruary 19  they  were  thrifty  and  thoroly  rested  from  their  shipment 
from  the  West,  and  well  prepared  for  the  fattening  period. 

FEED 

The  corn  used  in  each  experiment  was  grown  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  Experiment  Station  and  would  grade  as  No.  2  Yellow.  In  Experi- 
ment No.  1,  the  alfalfa  fed  for  the  first  47  days  was  locally  grown, 
but  because  of  unfavorable  weather  at  harvesting,  it  was  not  of  first 
quality.  During  the  remainder  of  this  experiment  and  thruput  Ex- 
periment No.  2,  choice  alfalfa  from  the  West  was  fed. 

Toward  the  close  of  Experiment  No.  1,  some  soybeans  were  used 
to  give  variety  to  the  ration,  but  since  the  largest  total  amount  fed  in 
any  case  was  only  1.1  pounds  per  lamb,  they  are  disregarded  as  such 
in  the  following  discussion  and  reported  as  corn. 


PROPORTIONS  OP  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS  55 

EQUIPMENT 

In  each  experiment  the  feeding  was  carried  on  in  the  north  side 
of  a  shed  that  was  8  feet  high  at  the  center  and  6  feet  high  at  the  side 
walls.  Ventilators  in  the  roof  and  numerous  doors  and  windows  in 
the  sides  provided  a  good  circulation  of  air.  Exclusive  of  racks,  there 
were  approximately  6  square  feet  of  floor  space  to  each  lamb  inside  the 
shed  and  12  square  feet  in  a  cinder  lot  just  outside  and  north  of  each 
pen.  In  fair  weather  the  lambs  had  access  to  the  cinder  lots  during 
the  day. 

This  shed  was  of  cheap  construction  and  about  the  type  that  the 
average  feeder  would  expect  to  use.  It  sheltered  the  lambs  from 
storms  and  winds,  but  was  only  a  fair  protection  against  the  cold. 

METHOD  OF  FEEDING 

The  daily  ration  was  given  in  two  equal  portions,  one  at  7 :00  a.m. 
and  the  other  at  4 :00  p.m.  All  feed  was  placed  in  combination  grain 
and  hay  racks  inside  the  shed.  Just  before  feeding  time,  the  troughs 
were  carefully  swept,  and  the  refuse  from  the  previous  feeding  was 
placed  in  canvas  bags,  from  which  it  was  weighed  at  the  close  of  every 
week.  Before  the  grain  was  placed  in  the  troughs,  the  lambs  were 
driven  out  into  the  lots  in  order  to  make  possible  an  even  distribution 
of  grain  and  give  each  lamb  an  equal  opportunity  to  get  feed.  Hay 
was  fed  after  all  the  grain  had  been  eaten. 

It  was  a  part  of  the  method  of  feeding  to  have  all  edible  feed 
consumed.  When  any  such  feed  was  left,  some  adjustment  was  made 
to  prevent  a  repetition  of  the  occurrence.  If  any  clean  corn  was  left, 
it  was  taken  as  an  indication  of  over-feeding,  and  at  the  next  feeding  a 
reduction  was  made  proportionate  to  the  amount  not  eaten. 

During  the  day  the  lambs  had  access  to  clean,  fresh  water,  but  at 
night  it  was  withheld,  since  there  was  no  way  to  keep  it  from  freezing. 
Salt  was  either  given  twice  a  week  or  kept  before  the  lambs  all  the 
time.  Oat  straw  was  used  for  keeping  the  pens  and  lots  well  bedded. 

Once  each  week  the  lambs  were  weighed  in  lots  in  the  morning 
before  they  were  given  water  or  feed.  They  were  also  weighed  individ- 
ually at  the  beginning  and  at  the  close  of  the  feeding  period. 

CONSUMPTION    OF    FEED 

Table  1,  dealing  with  the  consumption  of  feed  per  lamb  per  day 
during  each  period  of  each  experiment,  suggests  three  topics  that 
are  of  importance  to  the  lamb  feeder,  namely:  the  proportions  in 
which  corn  and  alfalfa  hay  may  be  fed  in  each  period  of  the  feeding 
operation;  the  influence  of  the  proportion  of  corn  to  hay  upon  the 
total  amount  of  feed  that  lambs  are  able  to  consume ;  and  the  increase 
or  decrease  in  the  ability  of  lambs  to  consume  feed  as  the  feeding 
period  advances. 


56  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

PROPORTIONS  IN  WHICH  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  HAY  MAY  BE  FED  IN  EACH 
PERIOD  OF  THE  FEEDING  OPERATION 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  the  first  period  (29  days)  the  proportions 
in  which  corn  and  hay  were  fed  ranged  in  Experiment  No.  1  from  1 
of  corn  to  2  of  hay  in  Lot  1,  to  1  of  corn  to  5.47  of  hay  in  Lot  4.  In 
Experiment  No.  2,  the  range  was  not  so  wide,  being  1  of  corn  to  1.57  of 
hay  in  Lot  1,  and  1  of  corn  to  3.34  of  hay  in  Lot  3.  It  will  also  be 
noticed  that  in  all  lots  the  corn  formed  a  larger  part  of  the  ration  in 
each  succeeding  period. 

The  small  proportion  of  corn  in  the  ration  in  all  lots  during  the 
first  period,  as  compared  with  that  of  the  other  periods,  is  explained 
by  the  fact  that  it  was  necessary  to  limit  the  corn  during  this  period ; 
for,  as  is  well  known,  it  is  not  safe  to  give  sheep  or  lambs  all  they  will 
eat  of  a  heavy  concentrate  like  corn  until  they  become  accustomed  to 
it.  As  a  result  of  limiting  the  corn,  the  hay  in  this  period  formed  the 
greater  part  of  the  ration  in  all  lots. 

But  why  was  it  possible  for  the  corn  to  form  a  larger  proportion 
of  the  ration  in  the  third  period  than  in  the  second?  It  is  evident 
that  this  question  applies  only  to  those  lots  in  which  the  lambs  were 
fed  as  much  corn  as  they  would  eat.  The  writer  believes  that  there 
were  two  conditions  present  which  help  to  answer  the  question : 

First,  the  lambs  did  not  become  well  accustomed  to  corn  until 
about  the  second  week  of  the  second  period.  This  was  particularly 
true  of  the  lambs  of  Experiment  No.  1,  which,  it  will  be  remembered, 
received  no  corn  prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  In  Experi- 
ment No.  2,  this  condition  was  not  so  great  a  factor  because  the  lambs 
had  received  a  little  corn  in  the  stover  that  was  fed  them  during  the 
time  they  were  on  the  University  Farm  prior  to  the  beginning  of  the 
experiment,  and  consequently  they  were  more  nearly  accustomed  to  it 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  period  than  were  the  lambs  of  Experi- 
ment No.  1.  This  fact  is  evident  in  Table  1,  which  shows  that  the 
increase  of  corn  in  the  third  period  was  smaller  in  Lot  1,  Experiment 
No.  2,  than  in  Lot  1,  Experiment  No.  1. 

Second,  the  appetite  of  the  lambs  for  corn  seemed  to  increase 
gradually.  Being  direct  from  the  range,  the  lambs  were  wholly  unac- 
customed to  this  feed.  It  is  true  they  ate  it  the  first  time  it  was 
offered  to  them,  but  with  time  their  liking  for  it  seemed  to  increase, 
and  hence  it  was  possible  to  make  it  a  larger  part  of  the  ration  in  the 
third  period  than  in  either  of  the  preceding  periods. 

Altho  the  appetite  of  lambs  for  corn  gradually  increases,  it  is 
not  to  be  assumed  that  the  proportion  of  it  in  the  ration  can  be  in- 
creased indefinitely,  for  lambs  are  ruminants — animals  that  are  adapt- 
ed to  handling  a  bulky  feed — and  hence,  even  in  the  process  of  fatten- 
ing, they  require  a  certain  amount  of  roughage.  It  will  be  noted  that 
in  the  third  period  about  3  parts  of  corn  to  every  2  parts  of  hay  were 
fed  to  Lot  1  of  each  experiment.  It  was  found  that  if  the  lambs  were 


1914] 


PROPORTIONS  OP  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS 


57 


fiiftf 

6       Pt      g 

CO 

d 

o 

ft 

03 
g 

"3 

M 

CD 

=H 

r*"!     S        rH 

9 

'~j 

rt  p^  o^ 

42 

^ 

J5         ft 

rH 

jiiit 

CO 

ft 

A 

be 

1 

§ 

fl           d 

> 

'•+3 

o  o?     ^ 

'S 

o 

O  rd        

'•<3 

w 

g< 

=(H    0         fl 

|g 

ft 
o 

In 

PM 

0+i    1 

cp 

3 

a 

PM 

h 

^         ^-v 

J 

M 

o    42 

IJlJIf 

0 

ft 
ft 

H    ^ 

a 

* 

CD           ^ 

+3 

w     o 

l3 

^  03  ^ 

~ 

«  _g 

«1 

%'*   ^ 

rH       CJ 

rrt 

C3       * 

J       CO 
M       co 

Jajlt 

i2!       Pi 

03 

pj       CD 

a    co 

CD      f> 

PH       F, 

0      <" 

• 

'C    rt 

H        CO 

S 

rrt 

CD      '~  ' 

S  s 

| 

rj                    « 

&      CD 

I! 

ft 

^     § 
w 

CO 

* 

«  -«3 

•    "a 

H 

ft 

gg, 

73   03    PI   £j» 

CD 

pi 

H 

rH 

<H 

rt 

o 

CM 

« 

M         (^ 

a* 

EH 

S 

ft^rg 

i-s 

<H 

^    2      (H 

0 

•^ 

r4             ft 

CO 

CM 

PI    ^ 

*    ^      -H      >» 

•j 

0 

S  f 

H^     ft4j 

O 

a? 

>> 

a 

k> 

o3 

o 

PI             03 

"w 

9 

^H       £<* 

O 

o 

Q     TO 

O5 

ft 

fl 

rrj 

O 

"^     -*—              ^H 

O 

£ 

0              O 

w 

•c 

ft 

bo 

a 

•» 

rrt 

o 

' 

® 

CP 

ft 

CO  CM  t-  t- 

CO  CD  IO  »O 

(M  CM  CM  CM 

CQ 

CO 
CO 

.2 
'C 

•  rH 

t~  O  )O  LO 

O  CM  »  OO 
rH  rH  rH  rH 

CD  CM  CM  CM 

IO    TjH   O5  (>• 

rH  rH 

O5  U3  O  t~ 

CO  OO  00  W 

O  O  rH  CM 

i-l  iH  rH  rH 

C-J  CM  Cv5  O5 

CM  oq  CM  <M 

09 

03 

CO 
CM 

O 

•g 

PI 
o 
o 

CD 

GQ 

rH  rH  CO  CO 
O]  IO  00  O 

rH  rH  rH  CM' 

rH  rH  CO  CO 
"^  rH  t—  IO 
rH  rH 

CO  CO  O  •* 
OO  CO_  TjH  CO 
O  rH  CM  co' 

co  •*  oo  t^ 

rH  i-l  O  O 

CM  oq  oq  oq 

CO 

5? 

J 

CM  OO  t~  IO 

CM 
O 

-•H 

CO 

-*J 
C 

s 

I-H  rH  rH  rH 

rH  CO  rH  CM 
t^  IO  -*JH  CO 

o  oq  t~  t-; 
cs  oq  o  ^J 
oq'  oq'  TJH  10" 

rH  i-l  i-H  rH 

rH  c?q  CO  •* 

-2 

I 
'S 
o 

ft 

9 


.  e8 

O  CO 

r^  PI 

a  co 

CO  rQ 

S  S 


CM  O-l  l^ 

!>•  O5  O5 

Ol  CM  CM 

m 

03 

rH 

•2 

*H 

•rH 

EH 

o  •*  oq 

rH  r-i  rH 

IO  CO  O 
CO_  TtH  rH 

rH  i-H  rH 

CD  OO 
CO_  O  t*; 

O*  rH  rH 

rH  rH  rH 

00  00  00 

Tjl   IO   IO 

oq  CM  oq 

03 
£ 

00 
CM 

.2 

o 

CD 

t-  CO  CO 
rH  rH  I-H 

rH  oq  oq 

Tj^  •—  H  O5 
iH  rH 

co  o  o 

t>-  co_  oq 

O  rH  rH 

iH  i-HrH 

rH  t~  O 

CO  CM  CO 

CM  CM  CM 

09 

rH  t~  t~ 

05 
CM 

O 

•c 

CO 

ft 

CO 

iH  rH  r-i 

O  O  CO 
O5  t^  IO 

s 

us  oq  co 

rH  Oq  CO 

rH  rHrH 

IH  oq  cc 

58  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

to  be  kept  on  feed,  it  was  not  possible  to  reduce  the  proportion  of  hay 
further,  at  least  to  any  appreciable  extent. 

Just  here  it  should  be  stated  that  thruout  the  experiment  the  lots 
which  were  fed  a  maximum  amount  of  corn  (Lot  1  of  each  experiment) 
were  at  times  difficult  to  keep  on  feed.  On  rainy  or  foggy  days  they 
were  more  likely  than  the  other  lots  to  go  ' '  off  feed. ' '  Lots  3  and  4  of 
Experiment  No.  1  were  never  "off  feed,"  and  the  same  was  true  of 
Lot  3,  Experiment  No.  2.  There  were  a  few  times,  however,  when  one 
or  two  lambs  of  Lot  2  in  each  experiment  refused  corn,  but  on  the 
whole  the  lambs  of  those  lots  were  not  difficult  to  keep  on  feed. 

It  would  therefore  seem  best  for  persons  without  extended  ex- 
perience in  lamb  feeding  not  to  feed  corn  according  to  the  propor- 
tions employed  in  Lot  1  of  either  experiment,  but  it  would  seem  safe 
to  use  the  proportions  employed  in  Lot  2.  As  will  be  seen  from  Table 
3  (page  63),  the  proportion  of  total  corn  to  total  hay  in  Lot  2  of  each 
experiment  was  about  1  to  1.3,  while  in  the  lots  where  a  maximum 
amount  of  corn  was  fed,  the  proportion  was  1  part  corn  to  less  than 
1  part  hay. 


Under  the  heading  "Feed  per  head  per  day"  (Table  1),  it  will 
be  seen  that  within  any  given  period  the  total  feed  consumed  (corn 
and  hay)  was  very  nearly  the  same  in  all  the  lots.  The  third  period 
of  Experiment  No.  2  was  the  only  period  in  which  there  was  sufficient 
variation  to  be  worthy  of  notice.  The  fact  that  the  proportions  in 
which  corn  and  hay  were  fed  had  no  profound  influence  upon  the 
total  feed  consumed  seems  to  indicate,  at  least  within  the  limits  of 
these  experiments,  that  the  total  capacity  for  feed  is  very  nearly  a 
fixed  quantity  within  which  the  feeder  may  operate  in  the  use  of  corn 
and  hay  in  whatever  way  may  be  the  most  economical,  providing  he 
can  secure  a  proper  finish.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  finish  was  secured 
in  all  the  lots  of  these  experiments  except  Lots  3  and  4,  Experiment 
No.  1. 

ABILITY  OF  LAMBS  TO  CONSUME  FEED  WITH  ADVANCE 
OP  FEEDING  PERIOD 

An  examination  of  Table  1  will  show  that  in  nearly  every  lot  of 
the  two  experiments  the  power  to  consume  feed  increased  in  the  suc- 
ceeding periods  of  the  experiments.  The  one  exception  was  during 
the  third  period  of  Experiment  No.  1,  when  the  consumption  of  Lot 
2  remained  stationary  and  that  of  Lots  3  and  4  decreased  slightly. 
However,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  during  this  period  there  were  6.59 
inches  of  rainfall  and  6.5  inches  of  snow,  it  is  significant  to  note  that 
the  consumption  was  not  materially  reduced.  The  depressing  effect 


1914]  PROPORTIONS  OP  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS  59 

of  these  adverse  weather  conditions  on  the  appetites  of  the  lambs  was 
evident,  and  undoubtedly  kept  the  feed  consumption  from  being  larger. 

In  Experiment  No.  1  the  daily  consumption  of  feed  per  lamb  (if 
the  average  of  all  lots  is  considered)  was  about  23  percent  greater  dur- 
ing the  second  and  third  periods  than  during  the  first  period ;  while  in 
Experiment  No.  2  it  was  only  about  11  percent  greater  during  the 
second  period  than  during  the  first,  and  during  the  third  period  than 
during  the  second.  It  has  been  the  experience  of  the  writer  that  the 
increase  in  the  capacity  of  lambs  to  consume  feed  as  the  fattening 
period  advances  is,  if  conditions  are  normal,  about  as  indicated  in 
Experiment  No.  2. 

The  much  greater  difference,  in  consumption  of  feed,  between 
the  first  and  second  periods  of  Experiment  No.  1  than  between  the 
first  and  second  periods  of  Experiment  No.  2  is  probably  explained 
by  the  fact  that  the  lambs  of  Experiment  No.  1  were  placed  on  ex- 
periment within  a  very  few  days  after  they  had  come  from  the  market, 
and,  since  corn  and  alfalfa  were  new  feeds  to  them,  it  was  necessary 
for  a  time  to  limit  both  to  such  an  extent  that  the  appetites  of  the 
lambs  were  not  appeased.  On  the  other  hand,  the  lambs  of  Experi- 
ment No.  2,  as  already  stated,  had  eaten  some  corn  in  the  stover 
that  was  fed  them  before  the  fattening  period  began,  and  consequently 
it  was  unnecessary  to  limit  their  feed  during  the  first  period  to  such 
an  extent  as  it  was  necessary  to  limit  the  feed  of  the  lambs  in  Ex- 
periment No.  1. 

Lambs  grow  as  well  as  fatten  during  the  feeding  period.  That 
their  added  growth  increases  their  power  to  consume  feed  seems  quite 
possible,  especially  in  view  of  another  experiment  conducted  by  the 
writer  in  studying  age  and  weight  as  factors  in  lamb  feeding.  Three 
lots  of  native  lambs  were  fed  for  a  period  of  ninety-eight  days.  One 
lot  was  approximately  S1/^  months  old  at  the  beginning  of  the  ex- 
periment, another  lot  7  months,  and  a  third  lot  5  months.  The 
amount  of  feed  consumed  by  the  oldest  lambs  was  about  30  percent 
greater  than  that  consumed  by  the  youngest  lambs  and  18  percent 
greater  than  that  consumed  by  the  lambs  of  intermediate  age. 

But  there  are  other  factors  which  very  likely  have  an  influence 
on  the  ability  of  lambs  to  consume  feed.  Becoming  accustomed  to  the 
confinement  of  the  feed  lot  apparently  has  something  to  do  with  this 
ability.  From  the  open  range  to  the  feed  lot  is  a  radical  change  for 
western  lambs,  and  altho  they  may  not  be  noticeably  restless  in  their 
new  surroundings,  they  have  to  learn  to  be  content  with  mere  eating 
and  idleness.  It  would  also  seem  that  becoming  accustomed  to  the  feeds 
in  the  ration  is  another  factor  that  plays  a  part  in  the  increasing  ability 
of  lambs  to  consume  feed.  For  example,  the  lambs  used  in  these  experi- 
ments had  never  eaten  either  corn  or  alfalfa  on  the  range.  Both  feeds 
were  at  once  palatable  to  them,  but  as  they  became  more  and  more 


60 


BULLETIN  No.  167 


[March, 


accustomed  to  them,  their  desire  for  them  seemed  to  increase.  In 
this  connection,  the  writer  has  observed  native  sheep  learning  to  eat 
rape,  a  feed  which  is  universally  acknowledged  as  palatable  to  sheep. 
At  first  they  ate  of  it  sparingly  and  clearly  showed  their  preference 
for  an  adjoining  blue-grass  pasture,  but  in  time  they  learned  to  like 
the  rape  as  well  as  the  blue-grass,  or  even  better. 

CONSUMPTION  or  WATER  IN  EXPERIMENT  No.  I1 

It  is  generally  supposed  that  animals  consuming  a  large  quantity 
of  protein  will  drink  more  water  than  those  taking  a  less  amount,  but 
such  was  not  the  case  in  this  experiment.  As  will  be  seen  from  Table  2, 
the  lots  receiving  a  large  quantity  of  grain  ( a  smaller  amount  of  pro- 
tein) were  the  largest  consumers  of  water.  For  instance,  in  Lot  1,  in 
which  the  protein  consumption  was  smallest  (0.235  pound  per  lamb 
per  day2),  the  amount  of  water  taken  from  the  pail  was  largest  (4.02 
pounds  per  lamb  per  day),  while  in  Lot  4,  in  which  the  protein  con- 
sumption was  largest  (0.251  pound  per  lamb  per  day2),  the  amount  of 
water  taken  from  the  pail  was  smallest  (3.85  pounds  per  lamb  per 
day).  Thus,  while  the  total  quantity  of  protein  consumed  by  Lot  4 
was  greater  by  1.44  pounds  per  lamb  than  that  consumed  by  Lot  1, 
the  total  quantity  of  water  taken  from  the  pail  by  Lot  1  was  greater 
by  15.30  pounds  per  lamb  than  that  taken  by  Lot  4. 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  lambs  of  Lot  1  took  19  times  as 
much  water  from  the  pail  as  from  feed,  and  those  of  Lot  4  almost 
21.4  times  as  much. 

These  figures  adequately  demonstrate  that  clean,  wholesome  water 
is  a  very  necessary  requisite  in  lamb  feeding. 


TABLE  2. — WATER  CONSUMED  PER  LAMB  PER  DAY  IN  EXPERIMENT  No.  1 


Lot 

Proportion  of 
corn  to  alfalfa  hay 

Moisture 
in   feed1 

Water  in 
pails 

Total  in 
feed  and 
pails 

1 
2 
3 
4 

1        :       0.99 
1        :        1.36 
1        :       2.42 
1        :       3.45 

Ib8. 
.21 
.22 
.19 

.18 

Ibs. 
4.02 
3.89 
3.87 
3.85 

Ibs. 
4.23 
4.11 
4.06 
4.03 

Amount  of  water  in  feeds  calculated  from  figures  given  in  Henry 's  ' '  Feeds 
and  Feeding." 


aOwing  to  various  causes,  it  was  impracticable  to  keep  a  record  of  the  con- 
sumption of  water  in  Experiment  No.  2. 

2See  Table  3. 


1914}  PROPORTIONS  OF  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS  61 

GAINS   AND  MARKET   QUALITY 

In  Table  3  is  shown  the  proportion  of  corn  to  hay  and  the  average 
amount  of  feed  consumed  per  lamb  per  day  during  the  entire  feeding 
period.  There  is  also  shown  the  digestible  nutrients  consumed  per 
lamb  per  day,  the  daily  gain  per  lamb,  and  the  feed  required  for  one 
pound  gain.  This  table  offers  an  opportunity  to  study  two  things  of 
importance  and  interest  to  those  engaged  in  lamb  feeding:  first,  the 
effect  of  different  proportions  of  corn  and  alfalfa  on  the  rate  of  gain 
and  the  market  quality  produced;  and  second,  the  economy  of  the 
gains  from  the  standpoint  of  the  amount  of  feed  required  to  produce 
a  pound  of  gain. 

EXTENT  AND  NATURE  OF  GAINS 

Under  the  heading  ' '  Gain  per  lamb  per  day, ' '  it  will  be  seen  that, 
within  each  experiment,  the  greater  the  proportion  of  corn  in  the  ra- 
tion, the  larger  was  the  rate  of  gain.  This  is  explained  by  a  study 
of  the  data  under  the  heading  "Digestible  nutrients  per  lamb  per 
day,"  which  show  that  the  rations  fed  varied  with  respect  to  their 
content  of  digestible  nutrients,  and  that  the  lots  in  which  corn  formed 
the  larger  part  of  the  ration  received  a  greater  amount  of  digestible 
carbohydrates  and  a  lesser  amount  of  digestible  protein  than  those 
lots  in  which  corn  formed  the  smaller  part  of  the  ration.  It  would 
seem  that  the  quantity  of  protein  was  sufficient  in  all  lots  to  satisfy  the 
needs  of  fattening  lambs,  but  that  the  proper  quantity  of  digestible 
carbohydrates  was  lacking  when  a  comparatively  large  part  of  the 
ration  was  composed  of  alfalfa  hay. 

Another  point  that  should  be  kept  in  mind  is  that  alfalfa  hay  is 
coarser  and  more  bulky  than  corn.  Very  likely  its  bulky  nature  ac- 
counts for  the  fact  that,  taking  the  two  experiments  as  a  whole,  those 
lots  in  which  alfalfa  formed  a  comparatively  large  part  of  the  ration 
could  not  eat  a  materially  greater  weight  of  feed  than  the  lots  in  which 
corn  formed  a  comparatively  large  part  of  the  ration,  even  tho  the 
amount  of  digestible  nutrients  in  the  former  ration  was,  on  the  whole, 
lower.  Furthermore,  undoubtedly  more  of  an  animal's  energy  is  re- 
quired to  convert  a  coarse,  bulky  feed  like  alfalfa  into  utilizable  form 
than  is  required  with  a  more  concentrated  feed  like  corn ;  and  this, 
too,  reduced  the  efficiency  of  the  rations  in  which  the  proportion 
of  hay  was  comparatively  large.  This  statement,  however,  does  not  at 
all  presuppose  that  the  less  bulky  the  ration,  the  more  efficient  it  is 
for  fattening  lambs.  As  stated  in  the  discussion  under  Table  1,  it  was 
not  possible  to  increase  the  proportion  of  corn  beyond  3  parts  corn  to 
2  parts  hay,  for  lambs  are  ruminants — animals  that  are  adapted  to 
handling  a  bulky  feed — and  they  therefore  require,  even  in  the  pro- 
cess of  fattening,  a  certain  amount  of  roughage. 

At  the  close  of  the  feeding  period,  Lots  1  and  2  of  Experiment 
No.  1  were  in  prime  condition  and  sold  on  the  Chicago  market  for 


62  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

$7.85  per  hundredweight ;  Lot  3  sold  for  $7.65,  and  Lot  4  for  $7.50. 
Manifestly,  the  smaller  gains  made  by  Lots  3  and  4  were  the  chief 
cause  for  their  selling  below  the  price  paid  for  prime  lambs,  but  it  also 
seemed  that  another  cause  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  gains  were  due,  at 
least  to  a  slight  degree,  more  to  growth  and  less  to  fat  than  were  the 
gains  made  by  Lots  1  and  2.  If  this  was  true,  then  the  nature  of  the 
gains  had  a  bearing  on  the  way  the  lambs  graded  and  sold. 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  unusually  heavy  individuals,  all  the 
lambs  of  Experiment  No.  2  sold  as  prime  lambs  at  $8.50  per  hundred- 
weight. It  is  well  to  state,  however,  that  Lot  6,  which  was  a  duplicate 
of  Lot  3  except  that  it  was  sheared  earlier  (see  Table  9,  page  77), 
was  considered  worth  slightly  less  than  the  other  lots.  That  it  sold 
at  the  same  price  was  probably  due  to  the  urgent  demand  for  fat 
lambs  at  the  time  the  experiment  closed.  At  such  a  time  the  market 
is  not  inclined  to  make  such  sharp  distinctions  with  respect  to  quality 
and  condition  as  in  times  when  the  supply  is  normal.  The  differ- 
ence in  the  extent  and  nature  of  the  gains  of  the  remaining  lots  was 
not  sufficient  to  make  a  discriminating  difference  in  finish  with  re- 
spect to  market  value  even  had  conditions  been  normal.  The  fact 
that  Lot  3  clearly  belonged  in  the  prime  grade  while  Lot  6  barely 
squeezed  into  it,  indicates  that  the  proportions  in  which  corn  and  hay 
were  fed  to  those  lots  mark  approximately  the  lower  limit  to  which 
the  proportion  of  corn  in  the  ration  can  be  reduced  and  a  desirable 
market  finish  still  be  secured  in  a  period  of  ninety-eight  days. 

It  is  important  for  the  feeder  to  know  that  within  certain  limits 
different  proportions  of  corn  and  hay  will  produce  an  equally  satis- 
factory finish  in  the  same  length  of  time.  For  example,  in  Experi- 
ment No.  1,  a  ration  composed  of  1  part  corn  and  1.36  parts  hay 
equaled  a  ration  composed  of  1  part  corn  and  0.99  part  hay  in  pro- 
ducing a  desirable  market  finish;  and  in  Experiment  No.  2,  rations 
in  which  the  proportions  varied  from  1  of  corn  and  0.86  of  hay  to  1 
of  corn  and  2.03  of  hay  were  also  equal  in  respect  to  producing  a  mar- 
ket finish.  Since  the  above  is  true,  the  feeder  is  free  to  adjust,  at  least 
within  the  limits  mentioned,  the  proportions  of  corn  and  hay  in  the 
ration.  The  economic  significance  of  this  point  is  discussed  later  on 
page  66. 

ECONOMY  OF  GAINS 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  amount  of  feed  necessary  to  produce  a 
pound  of  gain,  the  rations  containing  a  comparatively  large  propor- 
tion of  corn  are  clearly  shown  by  the  last  three  columns  of  Table  3  to 
have  been  the  most  efficient.  In  Experiment  No.  1,  it  took  approxi- 
mately 12  percent  more  feed  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  in  Lot  2  than 
it  did  in  Lot  1 ;  36  percent  more  in  Lot  3,  and  44  percent  more  in  Lot 
4.  In  Experiment  No.  2,  it  required  iy2  percent  more  feed  to  produce 
a  pound  of  gain  in  Lot  2,  and  18  percent  more  in  Lot  3,  than  it  did  in 


1914} 


PROPORTIONS  OP  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS 


63 


Q 

B 

!« 

CO 

S 

T3  r-J             O  T3 

1 

n 

1 

«H  o5  03  rrt.  §  pj 

Q 

0  ?0  00  TH 
C-l  rH  rH  CO 

o 

TH  CT  IO 
»  CT  O 

S 

•3  s^-s  ^io 

Oi 

CO'  oi  rH  rH 
rH  rH 

tt 

t^oooi 

i 

O    t>   eg   O"*  Pi 

O 

CO 

• 

PH  ^      w  o 

*s 

^ 

IB 

PH 

g 

S 

o 

S 

-S 

S 

• 

. 

»»  fn  S  a  Pi 

P3    .r^      O      £j    «H 

u 

OO  t^  iH  OO 
O  CT  OI  rH 

ft 

co  co  o 
10  co  o 

£ 

ia 

"^  in  t^  oi 

1 

co'rjicd 

H 

«2     G5  e2     ^* 

gbo 

bo 

1 

3  * 

'« 

1 

P 
1 

•«  a> 

3 

i 

• 

|  .§  §  'c  .3 

is 

CT  Oi  t-  CD 

rH  OO  CT  CD 

rH  in  Oi 

S 

O    §,g    0    gr. 

'o 

^  CO  CO  CT 

o 

TjH  CO*  CT 

E 

S5*-" 

"S 

"i 

^, 

H 

_s 

8 

CT 

o 

i 

|&|l| 

o 

ft 

" 

O  Oi  CD  CO 
O  CO  rH  O 
CO  CT  CM  CT 

"B 

1 

ft 
™ 

rH  O  T* 
CO  CT  Oi 
CO  CO  CT 

1 

03 

O         1? 

^             B 

Q 
S3                & 

|t  III 

^j     ^       42    CS 

i 

rH  O  CO  O 
•«*  t-  CO  CC 
•*  CO  CT  r-1 

1 

rH  rH  O 
CO  CD  TtJ 
rH  rH  rH 

0 

•  rH 

s  s  -s 

0    ft    ^^   g 

.      03 

V 

2 

«      "*     TJ 

5-2 

o     01 
•z 

si  « 

.3 

^      0      ^ 

£   |            0 

"      O 

«fH 

<H       »r-l 
-4^>         CO 

^j 

^    g    2 

BS      0       fr 

a>  I~H            O> 

QJ     £_,                -M 

bo  o^         ® 

PI        CO 

0)       ,Q 

IO  rH  l^  rH 
CO  Tj<   •*  in 
CT  CT  CT  CT 

I    1 

OO  rH  O 
ID  OO  Oi 
CT  CT  CT 

bo 

g    A,     g 

a  B  1 

Q            fU 

«     a> 

ft    S 

0 

1 

«H 

"<             be 

ffl  ^        *^   ^» 

HH      ^ 

W     a> 

*|H 
•4J 

Q                ^ 

*   r-l     fl     M*1"1 

CD  CD  CT  rH 

^ 

CO  CO  CO 

in  co  CD 

CT  CT  CT 

1 

pj 

g      .2       Q     1^        ^        <O 

-»J 

"fl 

>» 

<j 

^  -S  ^     ft  ^ 

a 
5 

fe 

,a 

0T         ^ 

yP^ 

OQ 

H 

r. 

tH 

q\ 

| 

^ 

S 

^=2    *  J2   «" 

o 

CT  iH  i-H  t- 

CT 

^*    Oi    OO 

'H 

g 

2    '""'               H   *^ 

CT 

CT  Tfl  t~  OO 

^ 

rH  TtJ  t- 

J-j* 

[2j 

>S  ^45  ^ 

n' 

rH  rH  i-H  r-i 

cS 

rH  rH  rH 

,s 

• 

M 

S 

•^           r^J             ft 

i-s 

0 

OS 
o 

S 

o 

*• 

g 

g>     •*             K 

CO 

05 
rH 

o 

i 

2  aH's'^ 

CT 

CT  O  b—  in 

J 

CO  •*  00 

00  rH  OO 

•s 

Q 

P  fl  9  b 

•U 

rH  rH 

® 

rH  rH 

r2 

cT 

•^8     1 

o 

PH 

> 

w 

i* 

Oi  CD  CT  in 

rt 

CO  rH  CD 

a1 

0) 

cd                   -j* 

r^J 

Oi  CO  ^  ^ 

O  CO  OO 

A 

O 

•-Bs>>   -3 

O 

O  rH  CT  CO' 

OO 
Oi 

CT  rH  O 

** 

^J 

T<  o  ri 

Oi 

rrj 

04 

O    O  "        

••    ••    ••    •• 

r^ 

•  •    ••    •• 

• 

ft 

rr_J 

O 

O  «*H     O 

O 

1 

£  O-M      a 

•c 

o 

rH  rH  rH  rH 

1 

rHrHrH 

13 
(D 
N 

co* 

bo 

bO 

tj 

9 

-4J 

.S 

>r3 

1 

o 

"fi 

-H  CT  00  •* 

• 

rH  CT  CO 

•< 

H 

N 

PH 

64 


BULLETIN  No.  167 


[March, 


Lot  1.  Were  the  value  of  a  ration  determined  solely  by  the  quantity 
of  feed  required  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain,  the  data  presented  would 
be  conclusive  in  favor  of  a  ration  in  which  the  grain  slightly  exceeded 
the  hay,  as  in  Lot  1  of  each  experiment. 

EFFECT  OF  INITIAL  WEIGHT  ON  RATE  OF  GAIN 

No  matter  how  carefully  selection  is  made,  it  is  practically  impos- 
sible to  secure  a  band  of  feeder  lambs  without  including  individuals 
considerably  different  in  weight.  These  differences  may  be  in  size  of 
body  or  in  condition,  or  both.  In  selecting  the  lambs  for  the  experi- 
ments under  discussion,  a  great  deal  of  care  was  taken  by  parties  ac- 
customed to  handling  thousands  of  feeder  lambs  to  select  uniform  ani- 
mals, and  yet  in  Experiment  No.  1,  in  which  the  average  initial  weight 
was  about  69  pounds,  the  lightest  lamb  weighed  52.5  pounds  and  the 
heaviest  86.5  pounds ;  and  in  Experiment  No.  2,  in  which  the  average 
initial  weight  was  about  65  pounds,  the  lightest  lamb  weighed  44 
pounds  and  the  heaviest  80  pounds.  It  is  next  to  impossible  to  avoid 
these  variations,  for  they  exist  in  the  feeder  end  of  almost  every  band 
of  lambs  sent  to  market.  Moreover,  it  is  not  feasible  to  break  up  the 
feeder  part  of  the  band  and  mix  those  lambs  with  lambs  from  other 
bands  in  the  hope  of  securing  greater  uniformity  in  weight.  It  is 
therefore  of  interest  to  study  the  gains  of  light  and  of  heavy  lambs  in 
a  given  band,  and  Table  4  is  presented  for  the  purpose  of  such  a  study. 

TABLE  4. — AVERAGE  GAIN  OF  LAMBS  OF  LARGEST  INITIAL  WEIGHT  IN  EACH  LOT 
COMPARED  WITH  AVERAGE  GAIN  OF  LAMBS  OF  SMALLEST  INITIAL  WEIGHT 


Lot 

10  lambs  of  largest 
initial  weight, 
average  gain 

10  lambs  of  smallest 
initial  weight, 
average  gain 

Difference  in  favor 
of 
heavy  lambs 

Experiment  No.  1 


1 

2 
3 

4 

Ibs. 

29.20 
28.65 
17.65 
17.95 

Ibs. 

23.90 
21.60 
20.70 
17.40 

Ibs. 

5.30 
7.05 
—3.05 
0.55 

Experiment  No.  2 

1 
2 
3 

30.25 
34.10 
29.10 

28.00 
27.65 
25.40 

2.25 
6.45 
3.70 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  all  the  lots  except  one  (Lot  3,  Experiment 
No.  1)  the  ten  lambs  with  the  largest  initial  weight  made  a  larger 
average  gain  than  the  ten  lambs  with  the  smallest  initial  weight.  This 
fact  seems  to  be  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  the  statement  that  in  a 
given  band  of  typical  feeders  the  50  percent  belonging  in  the  group  of 
heavy  lambs  will,  in  general,  make  a  greater  average  gain  than  the  50 
percent  belonging  in  the  group  of  light  lambs.  There  are  good  rea- 
sons for  the  careful  limitations  placed  on  this  statement.  First  of  all, 


1914]          PROPORTIONS  OP  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS  65 

it  is  necessary  to  limit  the  statement  to  a  given  band  of  lambs  because 
a  band  of  heavy  lambs  may  not  surpass  or  even  equal  a  band  of 
lighter  lambs  in  extent  of  gains.  Second,  it  is  necessary  to  make  the 
statement  apply  specifically  to  two  large  groups  within  a  band,  one 
representing  the  upper  half  of  the  band  and  the  other  the  lower  half, 
with  respect  to  weight,  because  the  heaviest  lamb  in  a  band  may  not 
surpass  or  even  equal  the  lightest  lamb  in  extent  of  gains. 

That  in  individual  cases  initial  weight  is  not  a  sure  indication  of 
ability  to  make  gains  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  Lot  1,  Experiment 
No.  1,  of  two  lambs,  each  weighing  61.5  pounds,  one  made  a  gain  of 
only  19  pounds  while  the  other  made  a  gain  of  31  pounds.  Again,  in 
the  same  lot,  a  lamb  with  an  initial  weight  of  63  pounds  gained  31.5 
pounds,  while  another  weighing  86.5  pounds  gained  only  25  pounds. 
Yet  the  ten  heaviest  lambs  in  the  lot  made  an  average  gain  of  5.3 
pounds  more  per  head  than  the  ten  lightest  lambs. 

But  why  do  the  50  percent  belonging  in  the  heavy  group  of  lambs 
make  a  greater  gain  than  those  in  the  light  group  ? 

On  such  markets  as  Chicago,  Omaha,  and  Kansas  City,  the  feeder 
lambs  are  usually  those  that  are  left  of  the  large  shipments  from  the 
West  after  the  fattest  lambs  have  been  sold  to  the  packers.  Some 
of  the  lambs  rejected  by  the  packers  are  not  far  under  the  require- 
ments for  the  ' '  killing  class, ' '  and  these  usually  make  up  the  heavier 
lambs  in  a  feeder  band.  Others  are  more  noticeably  lacking  either  in 
size  or  condition,  or  both,  and  as  a  rule  (there  are  exceptions  of 
course)  these  make  up  the  group  of  lightest  lambs.  This  latter  group, 
therefore,  being  made  up  of  less  thrifty  individuals  and  those  that 
thru  some  defect  have  been  the  least  able  to  attain  size  and  fat,  does 
not  make  so  much  gain  in  the  feed  lot  as  the  group  of  heavier  lambs. 

With  respect  to  economy  of  gains,  there  is  no  information  that 
will  afford  a  comparison  of  the  two  groups,  for  in  these  experiments 
there  was  no  way  to  determine  whether  the  lambs  of  smallest  initial 
weight  consumed  less  or  more  feed  than  those  of  largest  initial  weight. 

Neither  could  it  be  determined  from  these  experiments  what  effect 
unevenness  of  size  among  lambs  of  the  same  lot  may  have  on  the  gains. 
It  may  be  well  to  state,  however,  that  practical  feeders  do  not  like  to 
have  large,  strong  lambs  and  smaller,  weaker  lambs  together  in  the 
feed  lot ;  for  it  has  been  found  by  experience  that  the  smaller  lambs  are 
crowded  away  from  the  feed  and  hence  are  retarded  in  fattening, 
while  the  larger  lambs  may  get  too  much  feed. 

While  this  discussion  of  the  effect  of  initial  weight  on  rate  of 
gain  does  not  bear  directly  upon  the  main  topic  of  this  bulletin,  it 
has  been  included  here  because  it  emphasizes  the  importance  to  lamb 
feeders  of  one  or  two  points  in  connection  with  the  buying  of  lambs : 
First  of  all,  even  tho  a  band  of  lambs  is  carefully  selected,  there  will 
always  be  considerable  variation  in  weight.  This  means,  of  course, 
that  all  the  lambs  in  a  particular  band  will  not  reach  market  finish  at 


66  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

approximately  the  same  time,  and  thus  emphasizes  the  advantages 
of  buying  lambs  in  lots  of  at  least  two  carloads,  so  that  an  early  ship- 
ment can  be  made  of  those  that  finish  early  and  the  underfinished 
ones  can  be  retained  for  later  shipment.  This  practice,  known  as  ''top- 
ping out,"  is  advocated  by  many  who  have  had  considerable  expe- 
rience in  lamb  feeding.  Further,  if  a  feeder  buys  only  one  load  of 
lambs  with  a  view  to  returning  all  of  them  to  the  market  at  the  same 
time,  especial  care  in  selection  is  necessary,  for,  as  stated  above,  altho 
carefully  selected,  the  lambs  will  still  vary  considerably  in  weight. 
Disregard  of  this  point  will  lead  to  such  variations  in  gains  that  re- 
turning all  the  lambs  to  market  in  desirable  market  finish  at  the  same 
time  will  be  quite  out  of  the  question. 

A  FINANCIAL  STUDY  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTS 

Several  facts  have  already  been  brought  out  in  this  bulletin  rela- 
tive to  the  effect  that  the  feeding  of  different  proportions  of  shelled 
corn  and  alfalfa  hay  had  on  the  extent  of  gains  and  on  the  market 
quality  of  the  animals  in  these  experiments.  There  yet  remains  to 
be  studied  the  effect  of  these  different  proportions  on  the  cost  of  gains, 
which  of  course  has  a  significant  bearing  on  the  profit  or  loss  of  the 
feeding  operation.  After  the  feeder  learns  what  proportions  of  corn 
and  alfalfa  hay  will  put  lambs  in  prime  condition,  he  must  then  de- 
termine the  particular  proportions  that  will  be  most  profitable  to  him ; 
and  in  this  determination  he  must  be  guided  by  the  relative  prices  of 
corn  and  hay,  and  by  the  efficiency  of  the  proportions  in  which  these 
feeds  are  used  in  the  production  of  gains.  Both  of  these  factors  are 
involved  in  the  study  shown  in  Table  5,  altho  only  the  first  receives 
direct  consideration. 

COST  OP  GAINS 

What  effect  has  the  proportion  in  which  corn  and  hay  are  fed 
on  the  cost  of  a  pound  gain  when  both  these  feeds  are  cheap,  when 
they  are  dear,  or  when  they  are  of  medium  price? 

In  the  column  under  corn  at  35  cents  per  bushel  and  hay  at  $8 
per  ton  it  will  be  seen  that  when  these  feeds  are  comparatively  cheap, 
the  greater  the  proportion  of  corn  fed,  the  lower  is  the  cost  of  gain 
per  pound.  In  Experiment  No.  1,  in  which  the  range  in  the  propor- 
tions of  corn  and  hay  was  wide,  the  difference  in  favor  of  a  large  pro- 
portion of  corn  in  the  ration  is  pronounced.  In  Experiment  No.  2, 
however,  the  difference  is  so  slight  as  to  be  almost  negligible. 

Turning  now  to  the  cost  of  a  pound  gain  when  both  corn  and 
hay  are  high,  we  see  that  with  corn  at  65  cents  per  bushel  and  hay  at 
$16  per  ton,  a  pound  gain  is  still  cheapest  in  those  lots  in  which 
the  largest  proportion  of  corn  was  fed.  The  same  holds  true  when 
the  prices  for  corn  and  hay  are  medium,  as  will  be  seen  under  corn 


PROPORTIONS  OF  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS 


67 


•o 

S- 

o 

1C 

to 

cg 

T—  I 

46- 

QO 

H» 

w 

M 
O 

5 

'«o 

PH 

r-t 

•«• 

GJ 

* 

t-H 

g 

<J 
> 

« 

CO 
1C 

<M 
r^ 
«• 

H 

<5 

H 

<! 

W 

00 

-60 

2 

5 

i 

to 

3 

Q 

•V- 

g 

^ 

^ 

t> 
1C 

09 

i 

T(< 

T-H 

•89- 

o 

Q 

E 

H 

00 

•*»• 

£ 

fe 

H 

<j 

0 

«o 

O 

r^ 

•C& 

O 
PM 

« 

w 

a 

1C 

CO 

Oil 

rH 

•40- 

JL, 

O 

g 

0 

00 

•«fr 

o 

1 

1 

1C 

w 

«w 

CO 

5 

H 

rO 

0 

ii 

'-d  o 

tl 

s 

ft 

a 
o 

1 

>» 

i 

^  -t-3 

H 

A        ^ 

o 

I^H 

H> 

i 

c 

I 

! 

rH  t~  C]  1C 

00  00  O  O 
O  O  r-l  r-  1 

O 

•*» 

i 

tO  O5  CO 
1^  l^  00 

CO  t-  tO  tO 

t^  t-  GO  00 

§    R°.®0. 

3         «• 

on 

T3 

d 

3 

OS  O  r-l 

to  t~  t^ 

0  0  0 

^ 

Thl  tO  O  GO 

•5        to  to  l^  tO 

..     o 

3    * 

& 

in 

to 

-i-T 

^ 

05  O  OS 

to  to  ic 

0  0  0 

0 

g         ••#  i-t  to  rH 

;              t^   CO    O5    O 

3      o 
3      -ee- 

&c 

•3 

&: 

"rt 

•n 

O  CO  GO 

t-  (>•  t- 

0  00 

3         5O  lH  r-l  <M 

to  t^  oo  cc 

O 

i      -ee- 

3 

5 

03 

CO  -*  tO 

to  to  to 
o  o  o 

3         00  O  1C  M 

;      ic  to  to  to 

*        0      '      '      ' 

ij      <& 

M 
o. 
M 

ff< 
1 

0  ^  •* 

ic  ic  in 
o  o  o 

5         to  Tff  O  IO 
3         tO  t^  OS  O5 

3        O 
J        «• 

-4 

^o 

o 

-4-J 

rH  tO  CO 

to  to  t- 

o  o  o 

H         CO  CO  -*  t^ 
3        1C  to  t~  t- 

^2 

Tt<    t^   O 

1C  1C  tO 
000 

o 
5     «• 

(H 

i 

^         O  (M  CO  00 

s      10  ic  ic  ic 

?       0     *     *     " 

a     *' 

5 

O) 

^ 

fe 

-»J 

a 

b-  t~  00 

0  00_ 

-          (35  t^  Tjl  i-H 

H         »C  tO  OO  Oi 

£,       •*" 

p 

H 

02 

•*  o  t- 

ic  to  tc 

1 

3         O  tO  O5  (M 

3         1C  iC  tO  b- 

-1         "^ 
3        » 

^3 

00 
O) 

^3 
o 

t-  0  1C 

T}1    1C    >C 

1        (M  1C  CO  T)H 

•^          Tt<   T(H   1C  1C 

»     R  <=  °.  °. 
a      o 

3     * 

C 
8 

P± 

tD 

a 

•  rH 

T3 

O  rH  CO 

"*   Tj<   •* 

00  0 

i 

H 

Ol  tO  (M  1C 
:       Oi  co  ^  ^ 

<D 

1 

c4 

tO  rH  CO 
GO  CO  O 

O  i—l  (M  CO 
> 

4 

O  rH  Ol 

I 
J         iH  rH  iH  iH 

i 

• 
I 

eriment 

rH  rH  i-H 

in 
| 

rH  <M  CO  •* 

M 

B 

»H  eg  co 

68  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

at  45  cents  per  bushel  and  hay  at  $12  per  ton,  or  corn  at  56  cents 
per  bushel  and  hay  at  $12  per  ton,  altho  in  the  latter  case  corn  is  high 
rather  than  medium  in  price. 

Hence,  whether  corn  and  alfalfa  are  cheap,  dear,  or  medium  in 
price,  the  cost  of  a  pound  gain  is  least  in  those  lots  in  which  the  pro- 
portion of  corn  in  the  ration  was  largest.  This  may  be  accounted  for 
by  the  fact  that  such  a  ration  produces  the  largest  gains. 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  obvious  that  with  corn  cheap  and  hay 
dear,  a  pound  of  gain  would  cost  least  in  those  lots  in  which  the 
largest  proportion  of  corn  was  fed.  This  fact  is  clearly  brought  out 
by  the  figures  under  hay  at  $16  per  ton  and  corn  at  35  cents  per 
bushel,  or  at  45  cents  per  bushel,  altho  the  latter  might  be  termed  a 
medium  price. 

It  is  also  of  interest  to  note  the  cost  of  a  pound  gain  when  corn 
is  dear  and  hay  is  cheap.  Under  corn  at  65  cents  per  bushel  and  hay 
at  $8  per  ton,  it  will  be  seen  that  in  Experiment  No.  1  the  cost  of  a 
pound  gain  is  still  a  little  cheaper  in  the  lot  in  which  the  largest  pro- 
portion of  corn  was  fed  (Lot  1).  However,  the  cost  in  Lot  2  is  only 
a  trifle  more  than  in  Lot  1 ;  and  Lots  3  and  4,  in  which  the  cost  was 
considerably  greater,  are  really  out  of  favorable  consideration  in  this 
discussion  because  those  lambs  were  not  in  desirable  market  condition 
at  the  close  of  the  experiment.  On  the  other  hand,  in  Experiment  No. 
2-  under  the  same  combination — namely,  corn  at  65  cents  and  hay  at 
$&— the  cost  of  a  pound  gain  is  a  little  less  in  the  lot  in  which  the 
largest  proportion  of  hay  was  fed  (Lot  3).  This  is  also  true  of  this 
experiment  with  corn  at  56  cents,  per  bushel  and  hay  at  $8  per  ton. 

Eliminating  Lots  3  and  4,  Experiment  No.  1,  and  considering 
each  experiment  by  itself,  it  might  be  said  that,  with  respect  to  the 
cost  of  a  pound  gain  when  corn  costs  from  35  to  65  cents  per  bushel 
and  alfalfa  $8  per  ton,  there  is  very  little  preference  between  the  pro- 
portions of  corn  and  alfalfa  fed.  When  corn  is  cheapest,  there  is  a 
slight  tendency  for  the  rations  made  up  of  the  largest  proportion  of 
corn  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  at  the  least  cost.  After  corn  reaches 
56  cents  per  bushel,  the  tendency  seems  to  be  in  the  opposite  direction. 

Again  eliminating  Lots  3  and  4,  Experiment  No.  1,  it  is  significant 
to  note  that  with  corn  at  56  cents  and  hay  at  $8,  the  cost  of  a  pound 
gain  in  no  case  exceeds  6  cents ;  and  with  corn  at  65  cents  and  hay  at  $8 
it  in  no  case  exceeds  6.6  cents.  These  are  fairly  cheap  gains;  and 
they  serve  to  explain  why  a  farmer  with  a  great  deal  of  unharvested 
cheap  roughage  can  feed  comparatively  high-priced  corn  with  profit. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  observed  that  in  all  lots,  whatever 
the  proportions  fed,  with  alfalfa  high  as  well  as  corn,  the  cost  of  a 
pound  gain  is  comparatively  high.  This  fact  helps  to  explain  how  it 
is  that  the  farmer  with  cheap  roughage  can  afford  to  feed  sheep  or 
lambs  under  these  conditions  when  the  speculator  who  has  to  buy  all 
his  feed  finds  it  impossible  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the 


1914]  PROPORTIONS  OF  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS  69 

cheap  roughage  referred  to  is  not  alfalfa,  altho  the  cost  of  alfalfa 
may  be  considerably  reduced  by  raising  instead  of  buying  it,  and  the 
same  is  true  of  corn. 

Thus,  the  figures  in  Table  5  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  man  who 
feeds  sheep  or  lambs  should,  if  possible,  grow  his  feed. 

PROFIT  OR  Loss  PER  LAMB 

Any  one  who  has  purchased  feeder  lambs  and  fattened  them  for 
market  knows  that  there  are  other  factors  involved  in  determining  the 
profit  or  loss  of  the  operation  besides  market  quality  and  cost  of 
gains. 

For  example,  the  margin  per  hundredweight  between  the  cost 
of  a  lamb  and  the  selling  price  of  the  same  when  fat,  is  a  greater 
factor  in  this  matter  than  is  any  other  one  thing.  Still  another  im- 
portant factor  is  the  cost  price  upon  which  the  margin  is  based.  Sup- 
pose, for  example,  that  lambs  cost  5  cents  per  pound  and  sell  for 
7  cents,  and  that  the  gains  cost  8  cents.  It  is  clear  that  each  pound 
of  gain  would  be  produced  at  a  loss  of  one  cent,  while  were  the 
lambs  to  cost  7  cents  per  pound  and  sell  for  9  cents,  there  would  be  a 
profit  of  one  cent.  The  margin  in  each  instance  would  be  the  same, 
and  the  cost  of  the  gains  the  same,  but  the  difference  in  profit  would 
come  from  the  difference  in  the  relation  of  the  cost  of  the  gains  to 
the  cost  price  on  which  the  margin  is  based. 

Still  other  factors  to  be  reckoned  with  before  the  profit  or  loss 
of  a  feeding  operation  can  be  ascertained,  are  the  death  loss  during 
the  feeding  period,  the  shrinkage  in  shipping,  and  the  expense  of 
shipping  and  marketing.  These  are  all  extremely  variable  factors. 
There  are  times  when  the  feeder  with  a  large  band  of  lambs  has 
scarcely  any  loss,  and  again  he  may  have  as  much  as  5  percent  or,  in 
extreme  cases,  even  more.  Shrinkage  in  shipping  to  market  is  not 
only  exceedingly  variable,  but  in  the  writer's  experience  it  seems  to 
follow  no  rule.  For  example,  in  Experiment  No.  1  the  shrinkage  was 
almost  5  pounds  per  head,  while  in  Experiment  No.  2  there  was  prac- 
tically none.  The  lambs  in  both  experiments  were  treated  as  nearly 
alike  as  possible  just  before  marketing,  and  in  each  case  they  were 
shipped  when  the  weather  was  clear  and  mild,  considering  the  time 
of  year;  yet  there  was  this  enormous  difference  in  shrinkage.  As  to 
the  expense  of  shipping  and  marketing,  it  is  evident  that  differences 
in  distance  from  market  are  bound  to  make  this  expense  variable. 

In  dealing  with  the  profit  or  loss  per  lamb  in  Tables  6  and  7,  no 
allowance  is  made  for  death  loss  during  the  feeding  period  because, 
as  stated  above,  this  is  an  extremely  variable  factor.  It  should  be 
noted,  too,  that  the  profit  or  loss  is  based  on  the  cost  at  home  and 
the  selling  price  at  home.  This  plan  is  adopted  in  order  to  eliminate 
those  other  extremely  variable  factors — shrinkage,  and  the  expense  of 
shipping  and  marketing.  Further,  ' '  Expenditure  per  lamb ' '  does  not 


70 


BULLETIN  No.  167 


L  March, 


-2       c3  oo  "> 
p       s-»  £ 

OS  -u 

to 

(M  IO  t~  t^ 

^.1^-^005 

i>;  t>;  t-^  to 

tn 

oo  in 

00  b-;  TT 

deducted 

~    O     rH    *H 

P 

iS 

_j 

-     *—  '     Oj    O 

^ 

M 

^ 

o  — 

O 

g 

ea 

Pn  « 

PH 

o 
A 

IB  «H    .g    fi 

Oi 

•^ 

co 

>o 

• 

.£H                    fH      ^  jj 

^ 

tO  (M  00  O5 

to 

CO  CO  <M 

^Q 

o>          rt  |^  "^ 

•4^ 

^.t-  in  rH  O 

oo  t^  in 

§ 

to  to  to  to 

•g 

to'  to'  to' 

T3 
0) 

1     g 

•  rH 

-.s° 

'S 

§ 

is 

• 

is 

P 

2  »-  -0 

1 

.  o  co  TJ<  co 

*   1-  •*'  05  OO' 

.5 

Th  CO  00 
<?q  rH  oo' 

2 

i 

^    OH  C3 

K  CJ  OJ  r"1  «~l 

•S 

CO  CO  (N 

p 

1 

3 

p 
K 

9 

d 

o>  *-' 

*rj 

S 

»    §    § 

g 

•fl 

o 

Q^P-H     rj 

Pn 

_  ,                 „       ^ 

o 

00 

-**  -*j  "C 

w14  S, 

,0  to  co*  oo  t-^ 

~»  O5  O5  OO  OO 

•  & 

in  w  w 

05  05  Ci 

s 
i 

g 

11s 

>>    CS  <H 
r-l     0 

1 

^ 

p 
1 

o 

m 
EH 

-4-J 
,O     °   -^     'f 

IB 

CD 

1 

g 

h 

(^  CO  CO  (M 
00  CO  00  00 

S 
45 

tO  Tj<  rH 

m  in  m 

1 

K 
* 

*(M      dl 

0) 

^  *&  ^f 

r< 

g 

I'^l^ 

! 

i 

•  •X 

H 

0) 

g 

W 

"p 

* 

J 

7 

to 

W 

a 

03 
-0 

**   A  «w  •+* 

ai  w  ^?   -H 

S*^  °  § 

.,  -^  be  g 

r^     CO     p  .rH 

bC^  'p   0) 

'3     g  _P     &l 

^  ^  be  <» 

8 

EH 

03 

<a 

oo  in  o  o  oq 

fS  O5  O5  O5  OO 

to  to  to  to 

^ 

B 
EH 

CO 

rH  OS  •* 
«5  tO  tO 

1 
2 

I 

EH 

^ 

OS 

>3 

'S 

00 

& 

fTj                               ^ 

•  .  •<*<  b»  co  m 

C5 

t-  (M_  OS 

>> 

a>           cj 

S"X         M 
rt  •*•*          HH 

.2 

2  o  t^  T»!  oo 

IS  rH  (M  in  tO 

o 

T(5  tO  H^ 

£ 

P     T. 

8 

PI 

rH  rH  rH  i—  1 

"C 
& 

rH  rH  rH 

i 

w 

be 

J;H 

rgS            S 

tO  <M  t-00 

be 
p 

in  tO  (M 

• 

cS     '     ^ 

1 

°»   rH  rt*  CO  OO 
£  rH  05  tO  -* 

CO'  r-i  tC 
CO   rH  OO 
rH  rH 

m 
1 

T 

(0 

fa 

1 

I 

_P 

«H 

*~* 

C4 

•N 

°c^ 

o''4 

g 

OS  CO  TtJ  TjJ 

6 

tO  rH  CO 
OO  CO  O 

'S'g 

'-5  o 

<O  *H  CQ  CO 

* 

O  rH  Ovj 

R  ^ 

*H    -*-1 

o 

p 



"p 



a  "P 

g§ 

1 

.1 

rH  rH  rH 

o  S 
o  o 

ti 

"tn 

^  1 

H1 

•     ^ 

1  2 

£3 

w 

-       H? 

-g 

TH  <M  CO  •* 

-H2q« 

VI 

5 

O 

1914] 


PROPORTIONS  OF  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS 


71 


§^ 

TO     Q^ 

S  CH 

'E/D  <» 


A< 


bo 


_ 


Us 


U5    03 

g-sy 
£  p 


*  I    I 

IK 


M  m  ^2  •«•  o 


2  &    « 


|^5 

t°5 

PH       g 


00  «D  CC  CO 

00  b-OO 
OS  00  <D 

d 
•ee- 

/ 

</> 

£ 

'a 

s 

o 

os  os  o  10 

C<J  O  00  b- 

0 

oo  oo  o 

OS 

rH  rH 

8 

rH  rH  rH 

•  rH 

1 

b-  in  <N  rH 

rH  rH  rH  rH 

ID 

1 

in  oo  o 

OS  CC  b- 
rH  r^:  rH 

is 

* 

is 

"-4J 

"a 
o> 

03 
.§ 

o 

rH  l^  <M  b- 

I-H  <M  in  m 
d   i"   1*  f 
••III 

|3 

i 

.a 

rH  O  1C 
O  rH  (N 

'     If 

E 

ft 

ft 

CO  CO  OS  CO 

ft 

rH  rH  b- 

£ 

CO  rH  O  rH 

sT  f  f 

-t-3 

*      *      * 

o 

09 

1 

in  os  co  os 
t~  m  co  <M 

d 

O 

5 

i 

OO  rH  b- 
OS  OS  b- 

-1 

. 

3 

-»J 

1 

CO  OS  «D 

^ 

o  os  oo  oo 

? 

^. 

C<]  rH  rH  rH 

L 

<M'  oq'  oq 

•£J 

• 

Jj 

V 

a 

H 

H 

!O  CO  M^  ^^ 

to  oo  ^ 

SL 

in  in  ^j  TJJ 

02 

b-  b-  b- 

c? 

rH  rH  rH  T-i 

rH  rH  rH 

T3 

•» 

cS 

O 

oo 

Q 

Tt<  O(M  00 

o 

OS  00  •* 

G3 

rH  rH  O  OS 

C\l  C\]  C-J 

ft 

rH  1—  1  i—  1 

v 

rH  rH  rH 

•09- 

Q^ 

be 

be 

q 

o> 

<C 

a> 

r-j 

b-  co  co  IN 

00  CO  00  CO 

\ 

50  ^  rH 

in  in  in 

*> 

oi 

O 

£ 

0 

-u 

OS  T|<  O3  U1 

^ 

?O   rH  CO 

§ 

OS  CO  •*  -^ 

o 

oo  co  o 

jjj 

O  rH  N  CO 

B 

S 

O  rH  <M 

V 

M 

ft 

9 

W 

H 

rH  rH  rH 

rH  Oq  CO  •* 

-H  N  CC 

72  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

include  the  cost  of  the  labor  involved  in  feeding  and  handling  the 
lambs,  nor  the  cost  of  bedding  and  salt,  since  it  is  taken  for  granted 
that  the  value  of  the  manure  produced,  for  which  no  credit  is  given  in 
the  receipts  per  lamb,  would  offset  these  items. 

Up  to  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  the  lambs  of  Experiment 
No.  1  cost  $7  per  hundredweight.  This  cost  includes  the  purchase 
price  of  $6.65  per  hundredweight  at  the  Chicago  market,  the  commis- 
sion, the  dipping  expense,  the  shipping  expense,  and  the  cost  of  feeds 
up  to  the  first  day  of  the  experiment.  The  lambs  of  Experiment  No.  2 
cost  $7.06%  per  hundredweight  up  to  the  beginning  of  the  experi- 
ment. This  includes  the  purchase  price  of  $6.80  per  hundredweight 
and  the  other  items  mentioned  under  Experiment  No.  1,  except  the 
dipping  expense  (the  lambs  of  Experiment  No.  2  were  not  dipped) 
and  the  cost  of  the  clover  hay  and  corn  stover  fed  during  the  time 
the  lambs  were  held  at  maintenance  awaiting  the  beginning  of  the 
feeding  period.  In  view  of  the  actual  cost  up  to  the  beginning  of 
the  experiment,  it  seemed  advisable  in  the  tabulations,  to  place  the 
cost  at  home  at  $7  per  hundredweight. 

Table  6  is  presented  merely  for  the  purpose  of  making  easily 
available  to  the  reader  the  source  from  which  the  greater  part  of  the 
data  of  Table  7  is  derived. 

Before  the  discussion  of  Table  7  is  taken  up,  it  should  be  explained 
that  "no  margin"  is  used  as  meaning  that  the  lambs  sold  at  home 
(i.e.,  at  the  feed  lot)  for  the  same  price  per  hundredweight  as  they 
cost  at  home  up  to  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  If  a  margin  is 
thought  of  as  the  difference  between  what  animals  cost  per  hundred- 
weight at  the  market  and  what  they  sell  for  when  returned  to  the 
market,  then  it  is  clear  that  ' '  no  margin, ' '  as  used  in  Table  7,  really 
amounts  to  a  margin. 

The  discussion  of  Table  7  may  be  divided  under  the  following 
heads:  the  effect  of  the  different  proportions  in  which  corn  and  hay 
were  fed  upon  the  cost  of  feed  per  lamb  with  feed  at  varying  prices ; 
the  effect  of  prices  of  feed  on  the  expenditure  per  lamb ;  and  the  effect 
of  the  cost  of  feed  on  the  profit  or  loss  per  lamb  when  different  mar- 
gins are  involved. 

Effect  of  Different  Proportions  of  Feed  upon  Cost  per  Lamb  with 
Feed  at  Varying  Prices. — It  will  be  seen  that  in  Experiment  No.  1, 
under  each  combination  of  prices,  the  cost  of  feed  is  greatest  where 
the  largest  proportion  of  corn  was  fed.  The  reason  for  this  is  very 
evident  if  it  is  remembered  that  the  total  consumption  of  feed  was 
about  the  same  in  all  lots,  and  if  it  is  realized  that,  taken  pound  for 
pound,  the  price  of  corn  in  each  combination  is  greater  than  the  price 
of  hay.  For  example,  corn  at  35  cents  per  bushel  sells  at  $12.50  per 
ton,  or  $4.50  per  ton  more  than  the  hay  in  that  combination;  at  45 
cents  per  bushel,  it  sells  for  $16.07  per  ton ;  and  at  56  cents  per  bushel, 
it  sells  for  $20  per  ton.  In  Experiment  No.  2,  the  cost  of  feed  is 
about  the  same  in  all  lots  under  any  one  combination  of  prices,  partly 


1914]  PROPORTIONS  OP  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS  73 

because  the  differences  in  the  proportions  in  which  corn  and  hay  were 
fed  were  not  so  great  as  in  Experiment  No.  1,  and  partly  because  the 
lots  receiving  a  large  proportion  of  hay  consumed  a  little  more  feed 
than  those  fed  a  large  proportion  of  corn. 

Effect  of  Prices  of  Corn  and  Hay  upon  Expenditure  per  Lamb  for 
Feed. — Perhaps  this  effect  is  more  keenly  realized  when  it  is  pointed 
out  that  in  Experiment  No.  1  the  expenditure  in  each  lot  is  42  cents 
greater  under  the  second  combination  of  prices  than  under  the  first, 
and  under  the  third  combination  86  cents  greater.  In  Experiment 
No.  2  the  expenditure  is  from  47  to  50  cents  greater  per  lamb  under 
the  second  combination  of  prices  than  under  the  first,  and  under  the 
third  combination  from  97  cents  to  $1.02  greater.  These  differences 
make  it  unnecessary  to  state  that  the  cost  of  feed  plays  an  important 
part  in  the  profit  or  loss  of  a  feeding  operation. 

Effect  of  Cost  of  Feed  on  Profit  or  Loss  per  Lamb  when  Different 
Margins  are  Involved. — Under  the  heading  ' '  No  margin, ' '  the  figures 
in  the  first  column  (which  are  based  on  the  first  combination  of  prices 
— corn  at  35  cents  per  bushel  and  hay  at  $8  per  ton)  show  a  profit  in 
all  lots.  In  the  second  column  (second  combination)  a  loss  is  showr 
in  Lots  3  and  4  of  Experiment  No.  1 ;  in  all  other  lots,  a  profit.  In  the 
third  column  (third  combination)  a  loss  is  shown  in  all  lots  except  in 
Lot  1  of  Experiment  No.  2. 

Under  "Margin  of  $1,"  all  three  columns  (based  upon  the  three 
different  price  combinations)  show  a  profit  in  all  lots,  and,  with  the 
exception  of  Lots  3  and  4  of  Experiment  No.  1,  enough  profit  to  indi- 
cate that  under  this  margin  and  with  any  one  of  these  combinations  of 
prices,  the  feeding  operation  would  have  been  well  worth  while. 

The  contrasting  of  the  profit  per  lamb  under  the  third  combina- 
tion when  a  margin  of  a  dollar  per  hundredweight  is  allowed,  with  the 
loss  per  lamb  under  the  same  combination  when  no  margin  is  allowed, 
forcibly  illustrates  the  need  of  a  margin  if  corn  and  hay  are  high. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  prices  for  these  feeds  are  comparatively  low,  as 
under  the  first  combination,  the  feeding  operation  can  be  profitably 
conducted  with  practically  no  margin,  provided  the  initial  cost  ap- 
proximates that  employed  in  the  table ;  namely,  $7  per  hundredweight. 
This  again  emphasizes  the  need  of  the  feeder  to  produce  a  part  or  all 
of  the  corn  and  hay  he  uses,  for,  in  the  corn  belt  at  least,  the  cheapest 
corn  to  the  feeder  is  that  which  he  grows  near  the  base  of  his  feeding 
operations.  The  same  is  more  than  likely  true  of  alfalfa  hay. 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  profit  per  lamb  under  all 
three  price  combinations,  under  both  "No  margin"  and  "Margin  of 
$1,"  is  greatest  in  those  lots  in  which  the  largest  proportion  of  corn 
was  fed.  Except  in  the  case  of  Lots  3  and  4  of  Experiment  No.  1,  the 
only  cause  for  this  is  the  greater  rate  of  gain,  and  consequently  the 
cheaper  cost  of  a  pound  gain  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  total  cost  of 
feed  is  greatest  where  a  relatively  large  amount  of  corn  was  fed.  In 


74 


BULLETIN  No.  167 


[March, 


the  case  of  Lots  3  and  4,  Experiment  No.  1,  an  additional  cause  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  these  lots  were  not  in  desirable  market  finish 
when  the  experiment  closed,  Lot  3  selling  for  20  cents  and  Lot  4  for 
35  cents  less  per  hundredweight  than  the  other  lots. 

There  is  only  one  way  to  make  computations  so  that  the  profit  per 
lamb  would  be  greater  in  the  lots  in  which  hay  formed  a  larger  part 
of  the  ration  than  it  formed  in  Lot  1  of  each  experiment.  This  would 
be  to  value  corn  at  a  very  high  price  and  hay  at  a  very  low  price. 
For  example,  if  corn  were  to  value  at  65  cents  per  bushel  and  alfalfa 
at  $8  per  ton,  the  profit  in  Lot  2,  Experiment  No.  1,  would  be  about 
the  same  as  in  Lot  1 ;  and  in  Lots  2  and  3,  Experiment  No.  2,  it  would 
be  slightly  more  than  in  Lot  1.  Such  combinations  of  prices  would 
be  possible  in  regions  where  both  these  feeds  are  produced  should 
there  be  a  shortage  of  corn  and  a  normal  or  unusually  large  crop  of 
alfalfa.  Then,  too,  in  regions  where  corn  is  not  produced  to  any  great 
extent,  but  where  alfalfa  is  plentiful,  the  more  liberal  use  of  alfalfa 
undoubtedly  would  prove  the  more  profitable. 


COMPARISON  OF  WETHER  AND  EWE  LAMBS 

A  secondary  object  in  Experiment  No.  1,  as  stated  in  the  intro- 
duction of  this  bulletin,  was  a  comparison  of  wether  and  ewe  lambs 
with  respect  to  consumption  of  feed,  extent  of  gains,  and  market 
quality.  For  this  purpose  two  lots  of  20  ewe  lambs  each  (designated 
as  Lots  5  and  6  )  were  selected.  Lot  5  was  fed  as  nearly  as  possible 
like  Lot  1  (wethers),  already  discussed  under  Experiment  No.  1,  and 
Lot  6  like  Lot  2  (wethers),  also  discussed  under  Experiment  No.  1; 
but  since  the  amount  of  feed  consumed  was  determined  largely  by  the 
appetites  of  the  lambs,  it  was  impossible  to  feed,  in  exactly  the  same 
way,  all  the  lots  to  be  compared. 

TABLE  8. — COMPARISON  OF  WETHER  AND  EWE  LAMBS  AS  TO  FEED  CONSUMED  AND 

GAINS  MADE 


Proportion 
of 
corn  to  hay 

Shelled   corn 
per  head 

Alfalfa 
hay 
per  head 

Gain 
per  head 

Fed  alike: 
Lot  1  (20  wethers)  

1-099 

Ibs. 
Ill  6 

ns. 

110  4 

Ibs. 
27  05 

Lot  5  (20  ewes)  

1-100 

110  4 

110  4 

27  14 

Fed  alike: 
Lot  2  (20  wethers)  

1-136 

94.3 

127  7 

24  22 

Lot  6  (20  ewes)  

1  :   1.34 

93.5 

1253 

22  05 

With  respect  to  consumption  of  feed,  it  appears  that  the  ewes  ate 
slightly  less  in  a  given  period  than  the  wethers,  but  the  difference  is  too 
small  to  be  of  significance. 


1914]  PROPORTIONS  OP  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS  75 

In  extent  of  gains,  Lot  1  (wethers)  and  Lot  5  (ewes)  were  prac- 
tically equal,  tho  Lot  1  would  have  exceeded  Lot  5  had  it  not  been 
that  in  Lot  1  there  was  one  lamb  that  gained  only  11  pounds,  the 
lowest  gain  made  by  any  lamb  of  the  four  lots  involved  in  the  com- 
parison. A  comparison  of  the  gains  made  by  Lot  2  (wethers)  and 
Lot  6  (ewes)  shows  a  difference  of  more  than  2  pounds  per  head  in 
favor  of  the  wethers.  This  is  enough  difference  to  be  of  significance, 
for,  since  the  consumption  of  feed  was  almost  the  same,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  wethers  made  the  cheaper  gains.  The  fact  that  in  one  case 
the  ewe  lambs  equaled  the  wethers  in  extent  and  economy  of  gains 
while  in  another  case  the  wether  lambs  excelled  the  ewes,  makes  inad- 
visable a  positive  statement  on  the  comparative  extent  and  economy 
of  the  gains,  altho  it  would  seem  that  the  advantage  is  slightly  in  favor 
of  the  wether  lambs. 

As  to  market  quality  and  finish,  it  was  generally  agreed  among  the 
commission  men  and  buyers  who  saw  the  lambs,  that  the  ewes  were 
slightly  superior  to  the  wethers.  Because  of  their  sex,  they  were 
slightly  more  refined  in  general  quality.  They  were  also  more  plump 
and  rounded  in  outline.  Had  they  been  sold  in  carload  lots,  it  is 
thought  they  would  have  brought  slightly  more  per  hundredweight 
than  the  wethers  because  they  looked  as  tho  they  would  return  a 
higher  percentage  of  carcass  to  live  weight.  This  opinion  was  substan- 
tiated by  the  returns  from  slaughter,  which  were  as  follows: 

Percentage  of 

carcass  to 
Fed  alike:  live  weight 

Lot  1   (wethers) 51.6 

Lot  5  (ewes)   52.8 

Fed  alike: 

Lot  2  (wethers)   52.2 

Lot  6  (ewes)    52.5 

The  higher  dressing  percentage  of  the  ewes  cannot  be  accounted 
for  by  a  greater  shrinkage  resulting  from  shipment  to  market,  as  Lot  1 
(wethers)  shrank  7.5  pounds  per  head  while  Lot  5  (ewes)  shrank  only 
5.7  pounds  per  head,  and  Lots  2  and  6  each  shrank  4.3  pounds  per 
head. 

All  four  lots  sold  at  $7.85  per  hundredweight.  On  this  basis  the 
carcasses  cost  the  purchaser  the  following  per  pound  (not  crediting 
the  by-products)  : 

Lot  1  (wethers) 15.21  cents 

Lot  5  (ewes) 14.87     " 

Lot  2  (wethers) 15.04     « < 

Lot  6  (ewes) 14.95     " 

In  each  case  the  ewes  cost  the  purchaser  less  in  the  carcass  than 
the  wethers.  The  poor  showing  of  Lot  1  in  percentage  of  carcass  was 


76  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

undoubtedy  greatly  influenced  by  two  lambs,  the  poor  one  already 
mentioned,  which  gained  only  11  pounds  and  was  very  deficient  in 
market  finish,  and  another  one  that  was  noticeably  deficient  in  market 
finish.  It  would  seem  that  the  difference  between  Lots  2  and  6  is  more 
nearly  typical  of  the  difference  one  would  expect  to  find  between  the 
dressing  of  wether  and  of  ewe  lambs. 

It  may  be  that  ewe  lambs  have  an  advantage  over  wether  lambs 
in  being  more  uniform  in  their  ability  to  make  gains.  In  Lot  1 
(wethers),  the  three  lowest-gaining  lambs  made  11,  14.5,  and  19.5 
pounds,  respectively,  while  in  Lot  5  (ewes),  the  three  lowest-gaining 
lambs  made  15,  18,  and  19  pounds.  Comparing  Lots  2  and  6  in  the 
same  manner,  we  find  that  the  three  lambs  with  the  lowest  gains  in  Lot 
2  (wethers)  made  12.5,  12.5,  and  13  pounds,  while  the  three  with  the 
lowest  gains  in  Lot  6  (ewes)  made  13.5,  13.5,  and  14  pounds.  The 
differences  submitted  are  small  and  may  have  been  due  to  coincidence 
rather  than  to  any  inherent  difference  between  wethers  and  ewes  in 
their  ability  to  make  gains. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  perhaps  fair  to  say  that  wether  lambs  consume 
slightly  more  feed  and  make  better  gains  than  ewe  lambs  in  a  feeding 
period  of  90  days,  and  that  ewe  lambs  take  on  a  slightly  better  finish 
on  account  of  their  better  quality  and  greater  smoothness  of  form.  How- 
ever, it  would  seem  from  the  results  of  this  experiment  that  the  differ- 
ence in  the  behavior  of  wether  and  ewe  lambs  in  the  feed  lot  and  at 
the  market  is  so  slight  that  there  is  little  cause  for  the  feeder  to  prefer 
one  over  the  other. 


EFFECTS  OF  EARLY  AND  LATE  SHEARING 

As  stated  in  the  introduction  of  this  bulletin,  a  secondary  object 
in  Experiment  No.  2  was  a  comparison  of  the  effects  of  early  and  late 
shearing  on  fattening  lambs.  For  this  purpose  three  additional  lots, 
known  as  Lots  4,  5,  and  6,  were  selected.  "With  respect  to  the  propor- 
tions in  which  shelled  corn  and  alfalfa  hay  were  fed,  the  six  lots  were 
treated  as  three  pairs  of  duplicates,  as  follows :  Lots  1  and  4 ;  2  and 
5 ;  and  3  and  6.  Lots  4,  5,  and  6  were  sheared  March  19,  one  month 
after  the  experiment  began;  the  other  lots,  Nos.  1,  2,  and  3,  were  not 
sheared  until  May  21,  near  the  close  of  the  experiment.  All  the  lots 
were  shorn  close  by  a  hand-power  machine. 

Table  9  shows  feed  consumed,  gain,  and  yield  of  wool  per  lamb. 


CONSUMPTION  OF  FEED 

In  each  duplicate  the  lambs  that  were  sheared  early  consumed  a 
little  more  feed  than  those  left  in  the  fleece.  Until  the  last  days  of 
April,  the  unshorn  lambs  ate  as  much  feed  as  the  shorn  lambs,  but  from 


1914] 


PROPORTIONS  OP  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS 


77 


TABLE  9. — FEED  CONSUMED,  GAIN,  AND  YIELD  OF  WOOL  PER  LAMB 

(Feeding  period  98  days,  Feb.  19  to  May  27.     Twenty  wether  lambs  in  each  lot. 
Approximate  initial  weight,  65  pounds) 


Date  of 
shearing 

Proportion 
of 
corn  to  hay 

Total 
shelled 
corn  per 
lamb 

Total 
alfalfa 
hay   per 
lamb 

Total 
gain  per 
lamb 

Wool 
per  lamb 

Fed  alike: 
Lot  1  

May      21 

1       0.86 

Ibs. 
133.5 

Ibs. 
114.7 

Ibs. 
32.45 

Ibs. 
8.75 

Lot  4  

March  19 

1       0.85 

136.8 

117.0 

32.15 

6.30 

Fed  alike: 
Lot  2  

May      21 

1       1.31 

111.6 

146.2 

31.35 

8.40 

Lot  5  

March  19 

1       1.31 

113.1 

147.8 

30.30 

6.40 

Fed  alike: 
Lot  3  

May      21 

1       2.03 

86.2 

174.9 

28.85 

8.60 

Lot  6  

March  19 

1       2.03 

86.7 

176.2 

23.97 

5.85 

NOTE. — One  of  the  lambs  of  Lot  6,  Experiment  No.  2,  died  during  the  sec- 
ond period,  making  the  average  number  of  lambs  during  that  period  19.36,  and 
during  the  third  period,  19. 

that  time  until  the  close  of  the  feeding  period  they  consumed  less  than 
the  shorn.  The  warm  weather  in  May  evidently  had  a  depressing  effect 
on  the  appetites  of  the  unshorn  lambs,  for  during  that  time  they  were 
much  more  difficult  to  keep  on  feed  than  were  the  shorn  lambs. 


GAINS 

It  will  be  seen  from  Table  9  that  in  total  gains  there  was  little 
difference  between  the  early-  and  the  late-shorn  lambs  except  in  the  case 
of  Lots  3  and  6.  Lot  6,  sheared  March  19,  gained  considerably  less 
than  Lot  3,  but  the  fact  that  one  lamb  in  Lot  6  was  lost  may  have  had 
an  influence  on  the  extent  of  the  gains.  However,  it  is  interesting  to 
note  that  in  all  cases,  contrary  to  what  would  generally  be  expected, 
the  lambs  sheared  late  made  slightly  more  gain  than  those  sheared 
early.  This  may  be  explained  by  the  presence  of  certain  conditions 
that  may  have  been  in  favor  of  the  lambs  that  were  sheared  late.  For 
example,  much  of  the  time  from  March  19,  when  Lots  4,  5,  and  6  were 
sheared,  until  about  May  1,  the  weather  was  abnormally  cold.  Such 
weather  had  a  visible  effect  on  the  shorn  lambs,  often  causing  them 
to  stand  shivering  with  their  backs  humped.  It  probably  hindered 
them  in  making  gains  and  at  the  same  time  aided  those  left  in  the 
fleece;  at  any  rate,  the  unshorn  lambs  seemed  the  more  comfortable, 
while  the  reverse  would  have  been  true  during  a  considerable  part  of 
April  if  the  season  had  been  normal.  Whoever  decides  to  shear  early 
is  obliged  to  take  chances  with  the  weather. 

Another  condition  that  worked  unfavorably  for  the  shorn  lambs 
was  the  manner  in  which  they  were  penned.  Each  lot  was  penned  by 
itself  in  a  small  inclosure  where  there  was  no  opportunity  for  the 


78  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

lambs  to  circulate  freely.  In  a  large  shed  each  individual  has  an  op- 
portunity to  move  over  the  whole  shed  space  and  thus  keep  warmer 
than  if  confined  to  a  small  pen.  Then,  too,  since  each  lot  was  penned 
by  itself  the  lambs  could  not  gather  close  together  in  large  numbers. 
While  lambs  do  not  "bunch  up,"  as  pigs  do  in  order  to  keep  warm, 
yet  western  lambs  stay  pretty  close  together  if  given  an  opportunity. 
It  is  a  matter  of  speculation  as  to  how  much  gain  the  early-shorn  lambs 
would  have  made  if  they  had  been  handled  in  one  large  band  within  a 
warm,  commodious  shed  or  barn. 

YIELD  OF  WOOL 

Another  very  important  consideration  in  shearing  fattening  lambs 
early  or  late  is  the  amount  of  wool  secured.  In  this  experiment  the 
difference  in  weight  of  wool  varied  from  2  to  2.75  pounds  per  lamb 
in  favor  of  late  shearing.  These  significant  differences  are  based  on 
the  weight  of  the  wool  just  as  it  came  from  the  lambs  and  not  on  the 
weight  of  the  scoured  wool,  that  is,  the  wool  fiber  free  from  all  ex- 
traneous matter.  It  is  needless  to  state  that  the  late-shorn  lambs,  hav- 
ing sixty-three  days  longer  for  growth  of  fleece,  yielded  a  greater 
weight  of  wool  fiber  than  those  shorn  early,  tho  a  large  part  of  the 
additional  weight  was  due  undoubtedly  to  the  presence  of  a  greater 
amount  of  yolk  (oil  from  sebaceous  glands  combined  with  perspira- 
tion). The  wool  from  the  late  shearing  was  also  longer  in  staple 
and  more  lustrous,  these  qualities  adding  to  its  desirability  from  the 
market  standpoint.  However,  the  local  dealer  made  no  discrimina- 
tion between  the  early-  and  the  late-shorn  wool,  and  hence  in  this  in- 
stance the  time  of  shearing  had  no  influence  on  the  market  value. 

The  difference  in  weight  of  wool  in  favor  of  late  shearing  had  an 
important  bearing  upon  the  financial  returns.  The  lambs  sold  for 
$8.50  per  hundredweight  on  the  Chicago  market,  or,  on  the  basis  of 
home  weight,  it  was  estimated  that  they  brought  $8.25,  the  shrinkage 
being  very  slight.  The  wool  was  sold  locally  for  25  cents  per  pound. 
At  these  prices  the  returns  from  the  various  lots  were  as  shown  on 
page  79. 

In  every  instance  the  difference  in  financial  returns  was  in  favor 
of  the  lambs  shorn  late.  This  was  due  to  the  greater  weight  of  wool 
secured  rather  than  to  the  difference  in  the  weight  of  the  lambs,  for, 
with  the  exception  of  Lot  6,  in  which  one  lamb  was  lost,  the  early- 
shorn  lambs  outweighed  the  late-shorn  per  lot  when  ready  for  mar- 
ket. Since  the  lambs  sold  for  an  abnormally  high  price  per  hundred- 
weight, the  heavier  weight  per  lot  was  all  the  more  in  favor  of  the 
lambs  shorn  early. 

A  comparison  of  Lots  1  and  4  shows  that  the  returns  per  lamb 
were  42  cents  in  favor  of  Lot  1  (sheared  late).  To  offset  this  differ- 
ence, due  to  the  greater  wool  value  of  Lot  1,  the  gain  in  Lot  4  would 
have  had  to  be  a  little  more  than  5  pounds  per  lamb  greater  than  it 


1914]  PROPORTIONS  OF  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS 

Fed  alike: 

Lot  1:     sheared  late 

By  20  lambs,  1775  Ibs.  at  $8.25  per  cwt $146.44 

By  wool,  175  Ibs.  at  25c  per  Ib 43.75 


Total $190.19 

Lot  4:     sheared  early 

By  20  lambs,  1822  Ibs.  at  $8.25  per  cwt $150.32 

By  wool,  126  Ibs.  at  25c  per  Ib 31.50 

Total $181.82 


Difference  in  favor  of  Lot  1 $8.37 

Difference  in  favor  of  Lot  1,  per  lamb .42 

Fed  alike: 

Lot  2:     sheared  late 

By  20  lambs,  1756  Ibs.  at  $8.25  per  cwt $144.87 

By  wool,  168  Ibs.  at  25c  per  Ib 42.00 

Total $186.87 

Lot  5:     sheared  early 

By  20  lambs,  1784  Ibs.  at  $8.25  per  cwt $147.18 

By  wool,  128  Ibs.  at  25c  per  Ib 32.00 

Total...  $179.18 


Difference  in  favor  of  Lot  3 $7.t59 

Difference  in  favor  of  Lot  3,  per  lamb .38 

Fed  alike: 

Lot  3:     sheared  late 

By  20  lambs,  1692  Ibs.  at  $8.25  per  cwt $139.59 

By  wool,  172  Ibs.  at  25e  per  Ib 43.00 

Total $182.59 

Lot  6:     sheared  early 

By  19  lambs,  1636  Ibs.  at  $8.25  per  cwt $134.97 

By  wool,  117  Ibs.  at  25c  per  Ib 29.25 

Total $164.22 


Difference  in  favor  of  Lot  3 $18.37' 

Difference  in  favor  of  Lot  3,  per  lamb 49 


'The  difference  in  favor  of  Lot  3  ($18.37)  should  be  disregarded  because 
of  there  being  only  19  lambs  to  sell  in  Lot  6.  49c  per  head  represents  the 
difference  per  lamb  about  as  nearly  as  it  can  be  calculated. 

was.  The  same  is  true  in  a  somewhat  less  degree  of  Lot  5  when  com- 
pared with  Lot  2,  and  in  a  greater  degree  of  Lot  6  when  compared 
with  Lot  3.  The  significance  of  the  advantage  secured  in  financial  re- 
turns from  late  shearing  is  apparent  when  it  is  realized  that  Lots  4,  5, 
and  6  would  have  had  to  gain  approximately  16%  percent  more 
than  they  did  in  order  to  have  overcome  the  greater  returns  in  Lots 
1,  2,  and  3. 

it  was  thought  that  shearing  early  in  the  feeding  period  might 
have  a  tendency  to  cause  the  lambs  to  sell  better  on  the  market,  but 


80  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

such  did  not  prove  to  be  the  case.  Lots  1,  2,  and  3  were  sheared  only 
about  a  week  before  they  were  marketed,  while  Lots  4,  5,  and  6  had 
been  sheared  about  seventy  days,  and  in  that  time  their  wool  had 
grown  to  sufficient  length  to  make  them  look  more  rounded  in  form, 
less  ungainly,  and  apparently  of  better  quality  than  the  lambs  just 
lately  turned  out  of  their  fleeces.  But  buyers  on  the  market  said  that 
altho  the  difference  was  very  slightly  in  favor  of  the  early-shorn  lambs, 
it  was  too  slight  to  make  a  difference  in  the  market  price.  The  only 
difference  to  the  buyers  was  that  the  early-shorn  lambs  had  pelts  with 
more  wool,  which,  altho  very  short,  was  worth  a  little  more  per  pound 
than  the  dressed  carcass.  In  times  of  low  prices  for  wool,  a  seventy- 
day  growth  would  probably  be  of  no  more  value  pound  for  pound  than 
the  carcass. 

In  summing  up  the  effects  of  early  and  late  shearing  on  fattening 
lambs,  it  may  be  said  that  under  the  conditions  existing  at  the  time 
of  this  experiment  it  was  better  not  to  shear  the  lambs  until  near  the 
close,  of  the  feeding  period.  This  was  because  the  late-shorn  lambs 
consumed  slightly  less  feed,  made  a  trifle  more  gain,  and  returned 
considerably  more  net  profit  on  account  of  the  greater  weight  of  wool 
produced.  The  writer  does  not  attempt  to  say,  however,  that  this  one 
experiment  conclusively  answers  the  question  as  to  whether  it  is 
advisable  always  to  shear  fattening  lambs  late  in  the  feeding  period, 
for  there  are  many  different  conditions,  each  of  which,  if  handled  most 
skilfully,  would  require  different  treatment. 

Many  practical  feeders  advocate  shearing  fattening  lambs  early 
in  the  feeding  period,  their  chief  arguments  being  that  shearing  stimu- 
lates the  appetite  and  results  in  a  larger  rate  of  gain.  The  results  from 
the  experiment  under  discussion  tend  to  support  the  first  argument 
but  not  the  second.  The  writer  is  not  disposed  to  refute  either,  for,  as 
already  pointed  out,  the  conditions  of  this  experiment  were  different 
from  what  they  often  are  when  a  larger  number  of  lambs  are  fed 
together  and  in  a  normal  season.  However,  the  results  have  a  value 
because  they  show  that  early  shearing  does  not  always  result  in 
greater  gains.  They  warn  the  feeder  to  study  his  conditions  care- 
fully ,  and  unless  he  is  prepared  to  keep  his  lambs  comfortable  under 
the  most  adverse  weather  conditions,  he  would  do  well  to  see  large 
advantages  in  the  procedure  before  he  decides  to  shear  early. 

Should  the  lambs  when  purchased  be  badly  infested  with  ticks 
and  the  weather  too  cold  to  permit  of  their  being  dipped  without  dan- 
ger of  serious  injury,  it  is  the  best  policy  to  shear,  providing  shelter 
is  available.  Should  they  have  an  unusual  quantity  of  burs  or  other 
vegetable  materials  in  their  wool,  it  is  often  advisable  to  shear  them 
as  early  as  possible  in  order  to  keep  these  materials  from  irritating 
and  penetrating  the  skin,  thus  forming  pus  pockets  in  the  flesh,  which 
are  almost  sure  to  cause  the  carcasses  to  be  condemned. 


1914]  PROPORTIONS  OF  CORN  AND  ALFALFA  FOR  FATTENING  LAMBS  81 

There  are  feeders  who  believe  that,  as  a  rule,  as  in  the  case  of 
this  experiment,  late  shearing  will  secure  the  most  favorable  results. 
Believing  that  large  gains  in  weight  will  result  after  shearing,  they 
plan  to  shear  two  or  three  weeks  before  marketing,  but  not  until  about 
the  first  of  June,  after  which  there  is  little  likelihood  of  cold,  back- 
ward weather.  Furthermore,  when  wool  is  high  in  price,  the  extra 
weight  of  wool  secured  from  late  shearing  is  undoubtedly  an  immense 
advantage.  When  it  is  very  low,  it  is  doubtful  whether  retaining  the 
wool  crop  at  all  is  of  advantage. 


CONCLUSIONS 

Consumption  of  Feed. — In  a  ration  composed  of  corn  and  alfalfa 
hay,  corn  can  be  made  an  increasingly  larger  part  of  the  ration  as 
the  feeding  period  progresses.  However,  in  the  experiments  herein 
reported  it  was  not  possible  at  any  time  to  make  the  proportion  of 
corn  in  the  ration  greater  than  1  part  corn  to  0.66  part  hay. 

As  the  lambs  fed  the  largest  proportion  of  corn  that  it  was  con- 
sidered possible  to  feed  them,  were  inclined  to  go  off  feed  in  unfavor- 
able weather,  it  would  seem  inadvisable  for  persons  inexperienced  in 
lamb  feeding  to  attempt  to  feed  a  maximum  amount  of  corn. 

The  proportions  in  which  corn  and  alfalfa  hay  are  fed  seem  to 
have  practically  no  influence  on  the  total  weight  of  feed  that  lambs 
are  able  to  consume. 

Under  normal  conditions,  and  within  the  limits  of  time  over  which 
these  experiments  extended,  it  would  seem  that  the  power  of  lambs 
to  consume  feed  increases  gradually  with  the  advance  of  the  feeding 
period. 

Gains  and  Market  Quality. — When  corn  and  alfalfa  hay  form  the 
ration  for  fattening  lambs,  the  highest  rate  of  gain  is  secured  when 
the  proportion  of  corn  is  as  great  as  it  is  possible  to  get  the  lambs 
to  consume,  apparently  for  the  reason  that  such  a  ration  permits  the 
feeding  of  a  greater  amount  of  digestible  nutrients,  particularly  car- 
bohydrates, and  that  less  of  the  animal's  energy  is  required  to  pre- 
pare the  feed  for  utilization. 

The  nature  of  the  gains,  that  is,  whether  they  are  due  to  growth 
or  to  fat,  has  a  bearing  on  the  way  lambs  grade  and  sell. 

Within  certain  rather  definite  limits,  different  proportions  of  corn 
and  hay  are  practically  equal  in  their  ability  to  produce  a  market 
finish.  The  feeder  is  therefore  free  to  adjust,  within  these  limits,  the 
proportions  of  corn  and  hay  in  the  ration. 

The  total  amount  of  feed  required  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain 
is  least  when  corn  forms  a  comparatively  large  part  of  the  ration. 

In  individual  cases  initial  weight  is  not  a  sure  indication  of  abil- 
ity to  make  gains,  but  in  a  given  band  of  typical  feeders  the  50  per- 


82  BULLETIN  No.  167  [March, 

cent  belonging  in  the  group  of  heavy  lambs  will,  in  general,  make  a 
greater  average  gain  than  the  50  percent  belonging  in  the  group  of 
light  lambs. 

Financial  Aspects. — According  to  any  of  the  combinations  of 
prices  herein  used  for  corn  and  alfalfa  hay,  except  a  combination  of 
comparatively  high  corn  and  cheap  alfalfa,  the  larger  the  proportion 
of  corn  that  lambs  can  be  induced  to  consume,  the  lower  is  the  cost 
of  a  pound  gain  and  the  greater  is  the  profit  per  lamb.  Should  there 
be  a  combination  of  very  dear  corn  and  very  cheap  hay,  the  profit  per 
lamb  would  be  about  the  same  or  slightly  greater  the  larger  the 
amount  of  hay  consumed. 

The  fact  is  emphasized  that  the  lamb  feeder  ought  to  grow  all 
or  part  of  the  feed  he  uses,  near  the  base  of  his  feeding  operations. 
The  significance  of  this  statement  can  best  be  comprehended  by  re- 
calling that  with  "no  margin"  it  was  shown  that  a  fair  profit  would 
have  been  realized  if  corn  had  been  valued  at  35  cents  per  bushel 
and  hay  at  $8  per  ton,  while  with  corn  at  56  cents  per  bushel  and 
hay  at  $16  per  ton,  there  would  have  been  a  loss  in  all  lots  except  one. 

In  determining  the  particular  proportions  that  will  be  most  profit- 
able to  him,  the  feeder  must  be  guided  by  the  relative  prices  of  corn 
and  hay,  and  by  the  efficiency  of  the  proportions  in  which  these  feeds 
are  used. 

Comparison  of  Wether  and  Ewe  Lambs. — The  difference  in  the 
behavior  of  wether  and  ewe  lambs  in  the  feed  lot  and  at  the  market 
is  so  slight  that  there  is  little  cause  for  the  feeder  to  prefer  one  over 
the  other. 

Early  and  Late  Shearing. — Early  shearing  does  not  always  re- 
sult in  a  greater  gain  in  weight.  The  feeder  should  study  his  condi- 
tions carefully,  and  unless  he  is  prepared  to  keep  his  lambs  comfort- 
able under  the  most  adverse  weather  conditions,  he  would  do  well  to 
see  large  advantages  in  the  procedure  before  he  decides  to  shear  early. 


,.  it* 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 

Q630.7IL6B  C<>D1 

BULLETIN.  URBANA 
166-181  1914-15 


130112019528436 


ft « 


